Coleman v Mabuza
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Ludorf J and Kuper J |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1963 |
| Court | Transvaal Provincial Division |
| Hearing Date | 07 March 1963 |
| Citation | 1963 (2) SA 498 (T) |
Kuper, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the magistrate at F Witbank dismissing the plaintiff's claim of R233.28 for damages which the plaintiff sustained as a result of a collision between a motor car driven by him, the plaintiff, and one driven by the defendant. In the summons the allegation was made that the collision was due to the negligence and/or recklessness of the defendant and no particulars were G sought to that allegation, the plea taking the form of a denial that the accident was caused by the negligence and/or recklessness of the defendant as alleged as the main defence and then followed the usual alternatives, pleas referring to joint negligence or that the collision was due to the negligence of both and seeking an apportionment.
The facts of the case were to a very large extent common cause. The H plaintiff was travelling along the Witbank/Pretoria Road during the day. He was travelling in the direction of Bronkhorstspruit. The accident occurred just outside Witbank. At that stage he was travelling at about 30 miles an hour. It was a straight portion of the road. It was in daylight and there was nothing to hinder a clear visibility. There was a lot of traffic in both directions and the plaintiff was one of a number of motor cars proceeding in the same direction. The plaintiff says that whilst he was so travelling he noticed the car in front of him suddenly
Kuper J
slow down as if to avoid something and he immediately applied his brakes to avoid colliding with the car in front of him and then looking in his rear mirror saw a car which appeared to him to be coming fast and that A car, which was driven by the respondent, collided with his car. He said he gave no stop sign and the car in front of him had given no stop sign. His car was very extensively damaged, the amount that he claimed being the costs to him of the repair of the car.
There has been a considerable debate before us in regard to the question B of onus in cases of this kind. The appellant has contended that when he has proved that the car behind him has run into him he has discharged the primary onus and an onus then rested upon the defendant to prove why it was that he ran into the car in front of him; that it is his task to prove the reason for that running into the car in front of him and to suggest that the reason was due to no negligence on his part. C I do not think that that is the proper way to approach an onus in these collision cases. The onus of proving negligence rests throughout on the plaintiff; even in cases where res ipse loquitur or cases which approach that occur, all that is meant is that if the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rankisson & Son v Springfield Omnibus Services (Pty) Ltd
...hypothetical suggestions will, of course, not avail the defendant' (at p. 575, per OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A.; see also, Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T)). A defendant who wishes to avoid an C adverse inference in such circumstances must generally do more than merely show that his explanat......
-
Rankisson & Son v Springfield Omnibus Services (Pty) Ltd
...hypothetical suggestions will, of course, not avail the defendant' (at p. 575, per OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A.; see also, Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T)). A defendant who wishes to avoid an C adverse inference in such circumstances must generally do more than merely show that his explanat......
-
Sparks v David Polliack & Co (Pty) Ltd
...On the record I cannot say that he was wrong in so deciding. In view of that conclusion I cannot find on the record that the 1963 (2) SA p498 Trollip defendant's attorney was justified in withdrawing from the case as he did. It may be that despite the refusal of the postponement he could an......
-
Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Limited v Pro-Haul Transport Africa CC
...which is consequently binding on this court unless I can find that it is clearly wrong. The subsequent case of Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T) is a two judge (Ludorf, Kuper JJ) Full Bench of the then Transvaal Provincial Division, which binds me even if I considered that it was clearl......
-
Rankisson & Son v Springfield Omnibus Services (Pty) Ltd
...hypothetical suggestions will, of course, not avail the defendant' (at p. 575, per OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A.; see also, Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T)). A defendant who wishes to avoid an C adverse inference in such circumstances must generally do more than merely show that his explanat......
-
Rankisson & Son v Springfield Omnibus Services (Pty) Ltd
...hypothetical suggestions will, of course, not avail the defendant' (at p. 575, per OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A.; see also, Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T)). A defendant who wishes to avoid an C adverse inference in such circumstances must generally do more than merely show that his explanat......
-
Sparks v David Polliack & Co (Pty) Ltd
...On the record I cannot say that he was wrong in so deciding. In view of that conclusion I cannot find on the record that the 1963 (2) SA p498 Trollip defendant's attorney was justified in withdrawing from the case as he did. It may be that despite the refusal of the postponement he could an......
-
Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Limited v Pro-Haul Transport Africa CC
...which is consequently binding on this court unless I can find that it is clearly wrong. The subsequent case of Coleman v Mabuza, 1963 (2) SA 498 (T) is a two judge (Ludorf, Kuper JJ) Full Bench of the then Transvaal Provincial Division, which binds me even if I considered that it was clearl......