Jones v Sentraboer Ko-op Bpk

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Jones v Sentraboer Ko-op Bpk
1980 (3) SA 400 (O)

1980 (3) SA p400

Citation	1980 (3) SA 400 (O)
Court	Oranje-Vrystaatse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	De Wet R
Heard	March 4, 1980; March 5, 1980
Judgment	April 3, 1980

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Nalatigheid — Wat daarop neerkom — Motoris het na sy verkeerde kant van die pad gedraai omdat 'n aankomende voertuig na sy verkeerde kant gedraai het — Nalatigheid van motoris in die omstandighede.

Nalatigheid — Aksie om skadevergoeding — Verdeling van skadevergoeding — Aankomende trekker het aan sy verkeerde kant van die pad oorgery — Motoris het daarop na sy verkeerde kant beweeg — Kop aan kop botsing — Motoris ook nalatig in die omstandighede — Motoris se deel van die nalatigheid op 40 persent bereken en dit van die bestuurder van die trekker op 60 persent.

Headnote : Kopnota

Nadat dit alreeds sterk skemer was en sy ligte aan was, het 'n motoris 'n aankomende trekker genader. Die bestuurder van die trekker het na sy verkeerde kant van die pad vir 'n tweede keer oorbeweeg. Die motoris, wat van die eerste keer deur sy passasier gewaarsku was, het eerstens sy spoed verminder. Nadat een helfte van die trekker na sy verkeerde kant oorbeweeg het, het die motoris na regs beweeg ten einde 'n botsing te vermy, terwyl die trekker oorbeweeg het na sy korrekte kant van die pad. 'n Kop aan kop botsing het gevolg en die motoris is beseer. Die motoris is later, nadat aksie teen die versekeraar van die trekker ingestel is, oorlede weens ander oorsake en sy weduwee is in sy plek as eiseres gestel. Uit die getuienis het dit geblyk dat daar 'n gruisstrook van ongeveer 18 duim aan die motoris se linker kant van die pad, en ook 'n dreiningvoer was, wat dit gevaarlik sou gemaak het vir die motoris om skielik na links te beweeg.

Beslis, dat die wyse waarop die trekker bestuur was duidelik op nalatigheid aan die kant van die bestuurder van die trekker gedui het.

Beslis, verder, egter, dat die motoris nie tot so 'n mate te staan gekom het voor 'n noodtoestand dat hy slegs 'n oordeelsfout begaan het nie: hy was gewaarsku dat die trekker op 'n onbehoorlike wyse bestuur gewees het en moes die nodige voorsorg getref het: daar was voldoende spasie op die linker teer- en gruisgedeelte van die pad vir die motorvoertuig om na links te beweeg sonder om met die trekker te bots.

Beslis, verder, dat die motoris 40 persent bygedra het tot die veroorsaking van die botsing terwyl die bestuurder van die versekerde voertuig 60 persent bygedra het.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Negligence — What constitutes — Motorist having swerved to his incorrect side of the road because approaching vehicle swerved to his incorrect side — Negligence of motorist in the circumstances.

Negligence — Action for damages — Apportionment of damages — Approaching tractor driving over onto its incorrect side of the road — Motorist thereupon moving towards his incorrect side — Head on collision — Motorist also negligent in circumstances — Motorist's share of the negligence assessed at 40 per cent and that of the driver of the tractor at 60 per cent.

1980 (3) SA p401

Headnote : Kopnota

After it was already well into dusk and his lights were on, a motorist approached a tractor coming towards him. The driver of the tractor moved over onto his incorrect side for a second time. The motorist, who had been warned by his passenger of the first occasion, reduced his speed. After half of the tractor had moved over onto its incorrect side, the motorist swerved to his right with a view to avoiding a collision, whilst the tractor moved over to its correct side of the road. A head on collision resulted and the motorist was injured. The motorist later died from other causes after action had been instituted against the insurer of the tractor and his widow was substituted for him as plaintiff. It appeared from the evidence that there was a gravel strip of about 18 inches on the motorist's left side of the road, and also a draining furrow, which would have made it dangerous for the motorist to move suddenly to his left.

Held, that the manner in which the tractor was driven clearly indicated negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor.

Held, further, however, that the motorist had not been presented with a state of emergency to such an extent that he only committed an error of judgment: he had been warned that the tractor was being driven in an improper manner and should have taken the necessary precautions: there was sufficient space on the left and gravel part of the road for the motor vehicle to move to its left without colliding with the tractor.

Held, further, that the motorist had contributed 40 per cent to the causing of the collision whilst the driver of the insured tractor had contributed 60 per cent.

Case Information

Aksie om skadevergoeding. Feite wat nie van belang is nie is weggelaat.

A P Beckley namens die eiseres.

H P Viljoen SC namens die verweerder. E

Cur adv vult.

Postea (April 3).

1980 (3) SA p402

Judgment

De Wet R:

Verweerder is aanvanklik aangespreek deur Frederick Johannes...