Goldstein v Jackson's Taxi Service

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Selke J and Caney AJ
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1954
• Citation: 1954 (4) SA 14 (N)
• Hearing Date: 11 June 1954
• Court: Natal Provincial Division

H Selke, J.:

This is an appeal from the magistrate's court for Durban. On the 24th November, 1952, the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the court below, was driving his motor-car along Umgeni Road in Durban in a northerly direction when he was stopped by the constable

Selke J

on point duty at the intersection of Lorne Street and Umgeni Road. The defendant's motor-car, a taxi-cab driven by one MacNeill, there collided with the back of the plaintiff's car, causing damage which, it is claimed, cost the plaintiff £29 9s. 6d. to repair. He sued to recover this sum on the grounds of negligence on MacNeill's part, but the magistrate, after hearing the evidence for both parties, granted A absolution from the instance with costs, holding that negligence on the part of MacNeill was not established. This made it unnecessary for him to consider whether there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The collision occurred at about 5.15 p.m., when the traffic in Umgeni B Road was dense. The plaintiff's car was the leading car of a stream of cars going in a northerly direction along Umgeni Road, and MacNeill's car had been following plaintiff's car in this stream at a distance of about five paces. The plaintiff said in evidence that he was driving at a speed of between 25 and 30 miles an hour, and MacNeill put his own speed at about 20 miles an hour. It was raining and the road surface was C wet. In his evidence the plaintiff said that the constable's signal, which he saw when about 50 yards from him, was at first 'indistinct and appeared to point towards Lorne Street', but, shortly after first seeing it, he appreciated that the signal was against him, and he was then still sufficiently far away to stop. He says that initially he applied D his brakes fairly hard and eased up on them as he came to a stop, and the impact occurred after he had pulled up. He said he 'did not only apply his brakes at the last moment'. He acknowledge that he gave no hand signal of his intention to stop, but says that he had reason to know that his rear 'stop lights' were in good condition. The constable said in evidence that the 'plaintiff's car stopped normally in front of' E him, which I take to mean that it stopped in a normal manner, that is to say not so suddenly as to create a situation of emergency for other traffic.

MacNeill's evidence was that the plaintiff's car stopped 'all of a sudden'. He applied his brakes, he says, but his car skidded and F collided with the plaintiff's car. He acknowledges that he saw by the 'stop lights' that the plaintiff was stopping. He saw them 'flash on', and he knew the intersection was a controlled intersection and that it was possible that he might be held up there, and he says that his attention was on the plaintiff's car, and that, if he had been given the proper hand...