Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1972 (1) SA 26 (A)

Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff
1972 (1) SA 26 (A)

1972 (1) SA p26


Citation

1972 (1) SA 26 (A)

Court

Appèlafdeling

Judge

Ogilvie Thompson HR, Rumpff AR, Jansen AR, Corbett Wn AR en Kotzé Wn AR

Heard

May 6, 1971

Judgment

September 14, 1971

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Nalatigheid — Aksie om skadevergoeding — Bewys van nalatigheid — Twee redelik moontlike verklarings vir ongeluk — Versuim van een bestuurder om getuienis af te lê — Afleiding wat gemaak kan word — Saak wat in pleitstukke beweer is, nie by verhoor uitgemaak nie — Verweerder nie geregtig om in hoër beroep daarop staat te maak nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

Per JANSEN, A.R. (waarmee OGILVIE THOMPSON, H.R. saamgestem het): Wanneer dit gaan om die aanvaarding van één van twee redelik moontlike verklarings van 'n ongeluk, waarvan die een nie noemenswaardig waarskynliker as die ander is nie, kan 'n deurslaggewende afleiding gemaak word van die versuim van die betrokke bestuurder om getuienis af te lê. Of dit egter in 'n bepaalde geval behoort gemaak te word, en of die gewig daarvan inderdaad deurslaggewend is, sal egter van die bepaalde omstandighede afhang.

Eiser het ingevolge die bepalings van Wet 29 van 1942, soos gewysig, skadevergoeding van die verweerder gevorder op grond van beserings wat opgedoen is in 'n motorongeluk waarin 'n motorvoertuig bestuur deur D en wat deur die verweerder verassureer was, betrokke was. Uit die getuienis het dit geblyk dat op 'n nasionale pad het die voertuig deur D bestuur van agter met 'n galopperende perd gebots, die perd is in die lug geslinger en het te lande gekom op die dak van 'n aankomende motorvoertuig waarvan die eiser 'n insittende was. Die bestuurder van die aankomende voertuig is op slag dood. Die eiser en sy getuies het getuienis afgelê maar die verweerder het sy saak gesluit sonder om enige getuienis aan te voer. Die Verhoorhof het skadevergoeding toegestaan. In hoër beroep het appellant aangevoer (1) dat die eiser geensins die saak wat hy in sy pleitstukke beweer het, uitgemaak het nie en (2) dat die aangevoerde getuienis in elk geval onvoldoende was om nalatigheid aan die kant van die bestuurder van die verassureerde voertuig te bewys.

Beslis, dat onder die besondere omstandighede die verweerder nie toegelaat kon word om die uitspraak van die Hof a quo aan te val op grond daarvan dat dit gebaseer is op 'n feitelike fondament wat nie deur die eiser se besonderhede van vorderings gedek is nie.

Beslis, verder (waarvan CORBETT, WN - A.R., en KOTZÉ, WN - A.R., afgewyk het) dat, aangesien in die onderhawige geval dit by uitstek so was dat D met die ware gebeure uitsluitlik bekend was, die versuim om die bestuurder as getuie te roep, bv. om te sê dat die perd onverwags voor die motor ingehardloop het, die afleiding regverdig dat die perd dit nie gedoen het nie en hierdie afleiding, saam met die ander getuienis, bewys, as die waarskynlikste verklaring van die ongeluk, die nalatigheid van D.

Die beslissing in die Oranje-Vrystaatse Provinsiale Afdeling in van der Schyff v Marine & Trade Insurance Co. Ltd., bevestig.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Negligence — Action for damages — Proof of negligence — Two reasonably possible versions of collision — Failure of the driver of one of the vehicles to give evidence — Inference which can be drawn — Case as pleaded not proved at trial — Defendant not entitled to rely thereon in an appeal.

Headnote : Kopnota

Per JANSEN, J.A. (OGIL VIE THOMPSON, C.J., concurring): When it is a question of accepting one of two reasonably possible explanations of an accident, the one being not appreciably more probable than the other, a decisive inference can be drawn from the failure of the driver in question to give evidence. Whether such inference should be drawn in a particular case and whether the weight thereof is in fact decisive, will depend on the particular circumstances.

The plaintiff had in terms of the provisions of Act 29 of 1942, as amended, claimed damages from the defendant for injuries received in a motor accident when a motor vehicle driven by D and insured by the defendant was involved in an accident. From the evidence it appeared that on a national road the vehicle driven by D had collided with the rear of a galloping horse; that the horse was thrown into the air and came to land on the roof of an approaching vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The driver of this car was killed instantaneously. The plaintiff and his

1972 (1) SA p27

witnesses gave evidence but the defendant closed its case without calling any evidence. The trial Court awarded damages. In an appeal the defendant contended (1) that the plaintiff had in no way made the case he had pleaded and (2) that the evidence given was in any event insufficient to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle.

Held, that in the particular circumstances the defendant could not be permitted to attack the judgment of the Court a quo on the ground that it was based on a factual foundation which was not covered by the plaintiff's particulars of claim.

Held, further, (CORBETT, A.J.A., and KOTZÉ, A.J.A., dissenting), that the case in question was pre-eminently one in which the true facts were known exclusively by D, that the failure to call the driver, e.g. to say that the horse unexpectedly ran in front of the motor car, justified the inference that the horse did not do this, and this inference, together with the other evidence, proved D's negligence to have been the most probable explanation of the accident.

The decision in the Orange Free State Provincial Division in van der Schyff v Marine & Trade Insurance Co. Ltd., confirmed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Oranje-Vrystaatse Provinsiale Afdeling C (KLOPPER, R.). Die feite blyk uit die uitsprak van CORBETT, WN - A.R.

J. J. F. Hefer, namens die appellant: Die respondent het geensins die saak wat hy in sy pleitstukke beweer het, uitgemaak nie.

Dit kan nie aangevoer word dat die botsing(s) wat deur die getuienis gemaak is, volledig ondersoek is nie. Hierdie Hof kan nie tevrede wees dat al die getuienis gelei is en dat al die vrae gevra is wat die geval D sou gewees het indien die botsing wat bewys is, behoorlik gepleit is nie. Middleton v Carr, 1949 (2) SA op bl. 385 - 6. Die beslissende vraag is of 'n afleiding geregverdig is dat die bestuurder van die Chevrolet die perd moes gesien het op 'n stadium, inagnemende al die E omstandighede, toe daar vir hom tyd genoeg was om 'n botsing daarmee te vermy. R. v Yssel, 1945 T.P.D. op bl. 243; Hoffman v S.A.R. & H., 1955 (4) SA op bl. 476; Bhyat's Store v van Rooyen, 1961 (4) SA op bl. 64A - B. Die vraag is nie of aangetoon is dat hy die perd op een of ander stadium moes raakgesien het indien hy behoorlik uitkyk gehou het nie, F maar of hy dit aldus betyds moes gesien het. Cooper & Bamford, S.A. Motor Law, bl. 634.

M.E. Kumleben, S.C., namens die respondent: Para. 4 of the particulars of claim was admittedly inaccurate. When the form of the pleadings is raised as an objection on appeal, the Court will consider what was the substantial issue between the parties in the Court

1972 (1) SA p28

Rumpff AR

a quo. If it is shown that only one issue was raised at the trial, canvassed in evidence and dealt with in argument by both parties, it can be safely inferred that they appreciated that it was the real issue A between them, in which event the inaccuracy in the pleadings could have caused no prejudice. Cf. Shill v Milner, 1937 AD at p. 105; British Diesels Ltd. v Jeram and Sons, 1958 (3) SA at p. 606B. In the instant case the plaintiff from the inception unequivocally and consistently - and without any objection from defendant - based his case upon the two motor cars having successively struck the horse. Moreover plaintiff led evidence to rebut positively any suggestion that the motor B cars had struck each other to cause the accident. Cf. Smith & Youngleson (Pvt.), Ltd. v Dubie Bros., 1959 (2) SA at p. 135G, Geyser en 'n Ander v Pont, 1968 (4) SA at p. 78C - D.

In the absence of any evidence contradicting plaintiff's witnesses, C their evidence will be accepted unless it is so improbable that on that account it is to be rejected. See Minister of Justice v Seametso, 1963 (3) SA at p. 534A. Alternatively, the evidence made out a prima facie case against defendant which in the absence of any rebutting evidence discharged the onus of proof. Defendant was under a duty to call the D driver of the Chevrolet or tender evidence why he could not be called as a witness. In the absence of such evidence one is entitled to infer that his evidence would not exculpate him. Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re Jacobson and Levy, 1931 AD at p. 478; Minister of Justice v Seametso, 1963 (3) SA at pp. 535C - 536B; Botes v van Deventer, 1966 (3) SA at p. 188D - F; Netherlands Insurance Co. of South Africa Ltd. E v. van der Vyver, 1968 (1) SA at p. 420F - H; Putter v Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA at p. 150A - C.

Hefer, in repliek.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (September 14). F

Judgment

Ogilvie Thompson, H.R.:

Ek stem saam met my Kollega JANSEN se uitspraak. Die appèl word met koste van die hand gewys.

Judgment

Rumpff, AR.:

G Die feite van hierdie saak word volledig uiteengesit in die uitspraak van my Kollega CORBETT. Ek stem saam, om die redes deur hom genoem, dat in hierdie Hof die appellant hom nie nou kan beroep op die teenstrydigheid tussen die pleitstukke en die gelewerde getuienis nie.

H Wat die meriete van die appèl betref, verskil ek egter van my Kollega se konklusie en is ek van mening dat die appèl nie behoort te slaag nie. Die Verhoorhof het onbetwiste getuienis voor hom gehad dat die bestuurder van die Chevroletmotor met sy ligte aan in 'n helder nag van suid na noord gery het op 'n reguit teerpad. Volgens ingehandigde foto's is die veld...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 practice notes
  • International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SC (with him G E Turner) for the respondent referred to the following authorities: Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A); Titus v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (3) SA 119 (A); Macu v Du Toit en 'n Ander 1983 (4) SA 629 (A); Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1......
  • Black v Joffe
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(A): appliedMarais v Richard en ’n Ander 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A): dictum at 1168 appliedMarine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A):referred toMinister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A): dictum at 34E–H appliedMinister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A): dictu......
  • Neethling v Du Preez and Others; Neethling v the Weekly Mail and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...or the other. (See also Tregea and Another v Godart and Another 1939 AD 16 at 28; Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A) at 37-9.) Applying these concepts to an E application for leave to execute a judgment pending an appeal, the onus proper (or overall onus) ......
  • Makate v Vodacom Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...on appeal E Mann v Sydney Hunt Motors (Pty) Ltd 1958 (2) SA 102 (GW): referred to Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A): referred to MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Eastern Cape v Kruizenga and Another 2010 (4) SA 122 (SCA) ([2010] ZASCA 58):......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
98 cases
  • International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SC (with him G E Turner) for the respondent referred to the following authorities: Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A); Titus v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (3) SA 119 (A); Macu v Du Toit en 'n Ander 1983 (4) SA 629 (A); Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1......
  • Black v Joffe
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(A): appliedMarais v Richard en ’n Ander 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A): dictum at 1168 appliedMarine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A):referred toMinister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A): dictum at 34E–H appliedMinister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A): dictu......
  • Neethling v Du Preez and Others; Neethling v the Weekly Mail and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...or the other. (See also Tregea and Another v Godart and Another 1939 AD 16 at 28; Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A) at 37-9.) Applying these concepts to an E application for leave to execute a judgment pending an appeal, the onus proper (or overall onus) ......
  • Makate v Vodacom Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...on appeal E Mann v Sydney Hunt Motors (Pty) Ltd 1958 (2) SA 102 (GW): referred to Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A): referred to MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Eastern Cape v Kruizenga and Another 2010 (4) SA 122 (SCA) ([2010] ZASCA 58):......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT