SA Eagle Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Harford

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1992 (2) SA 786 (A)

SA Eagle Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Harford
1992 (2) SA 786 (A)

1992 (2) SA p786

Citation	1992 (2) SA 786 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Hoexter AR, Vivier AR, Kumleben AR, Howie Wn AR, Harms Wn AR
Heard	March 20, 1992
Judgment	March 27, 1992

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Appèl — In welke sake — Aksie om skadevergoeding — Kwessie van C aanspreeklikheid en kwantum geskei en Verhoorhof het uitspraak gegee slegs ten opsigte van eersgenoemde — Deurslaggewende vraag is wat partye met geding beoog het en wat Hof beoog het om te doen met bevel — Verhoorhof het beoog om verklarende bevel te maak dat appellant gesamentlik en afsonderlik vir enige bewese skade aanspreeklik is — Sodanige bevel 'n appelleerbare uitspraak of bevel omdat bevinding 'n D finale en beslissende effek op geding tussen party gehad het.

Nalatigheid — Wat uitmaak — Botsing by beheerde kruising — Word nie van redelike bestuurder vereis om 'absoluut seker' te maak dat dit veilig is om kruising binne te gaan alvorens kruising betree word al is 'n aankomende voertuig ver. E

Headnote : Kopnota

Dit word nie in ons reg van die redelike bestuurder van 'n motorvoertuig vereis om 'absoluut seker' te maak dat dit veilig is om 'n beheerde kruising binne te gaan alvorens die kruising betree word, selfs al is 'n aankomende voertuig ver.

Die respondent is beseer in 'n botsing tussen 'n motor bestuur deur ene B, waarin die respondent 'n passasier was, en 'n vragmotor verseker deur die appellant in terme van die Wet op Verpligte Motorvoertuigversekering F 56 van 1972. Die respondent het 'n eis om skadevergoeding in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling ingestel teen sowel die appellant as die eksekutrise van die boedel van B, wat in die ongeluk oorlede is, as tweede verweerderes. Laasgenoemde het by die aanvang van die verhoor aanspreeklikheid vir betaling van skadevergoeding aanvaar maar nie die omvang van die skade nie. Wat die eis teen die appellant betref was sowel die meriete as die kwantum in geskil. 'n Ooreenkoms is egter G bereik waarvolgens die Verhoorhof versoek is om vooraf die aanspreeklikheid van die appellant te bepaal en die bepaling van kwantum oor te hou vir latere beregting. Die Verhoorhof het bevind dat die bestuurder van die vragmotor nalatig was en dat respondent se eis ten opsigte van die meriete van die saak teen beide die appellant en die tweede verweerderes moes slaag en dat hulle gesamentlik en afsonderlik teenoor die appellant aanspreeklik was vir laasgenoemde se skade. Sonder dat die kwantum óf by ooreenkoms óf by wyse van litigasie bepaal is het H die appellant appèl aangeteken teen die Verhoorhof se beslissing. Op appèl was die vraag of die beslissing van die Verhoorhof 'n 'uitspraak of bevel' soos bedoel in art 20(1) van die Wet op die Hooggeregshof 59 van 1959 was en of dit derhalwe appelleerbaar is en, indien wel, of die Verhoorhof se gevolgtrekking oor die aanspreeklikheid van die appellant korrek was.

Beslis, dat die vraag wat beantwoord moes word was wat die partye met I die geding beoog het en wat die Hof bedoel het om in sy uitspraak te doen.

Beslis, verder, dat die Verhoorhof bedoel het om in sy bevel, nieteenstaande die onbeholpe bewoording daarvan, finale uitsluitsel oor die aanspreeklikheid van die appellant te gee - dit was nie die bedoeling om 'n voorlopige gevolgtrekking wat vir wysiging of regstelling vatbaar was, te bereik nie.

Beslis, verder, dat die Verhoorhof in effek 'n verklarende bevel uitgereik het dat die appellant gesamentlik en afsonderlik aanspreeklik is vir enige bewese skade wat die respondent as gevolg van die botsing J opgedoen het.

1992 (2) SA p787

A Beslis, gevolglik, dat sodanige bevel 'n appelleerbare uitspraak of bevel daargestel het omdat die bevinding 'n finale en beslissende effek op die geding tussen die party gehad het.

Beslis, verder, op die feite, dat die appèl moes slaag.

Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Harford v SA Eagle Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk en 'n Ander omvergewerp. B

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Appeal — In what cases — Action for damages — Question of liability separated from that of quantum and Court giving judgment on former only — Whether such judgment appealable in terms of s 20(1) of Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 — Decisive question that of parties' aim with proceedings and what Court intended to achieve with its order — Trial Court intending to make declaratory order that appellant jointly and C severally liable for any proven damages suffered by respondent — Such order appealable in that it had final and decisive effect on litigation between parties.

Negligence — What constitutes — Collision at controlled intersection — Not required of reasonable driver before entering intersection that he should make 'absolutely sure' that it is safe to enter the intersection even though approaching vehicle far off.

Headnote : Kopnota

D Our law does not require of the reasonable driver of a motor vehicle that, before entering a controlled intersection, he should make 'absolutely sure' that it is safe to enter the intersection, even though an approaching vehicle is far away.

The respondent was injured in a collision between a motor vehicle driven by one B, in which the respondent was a passenger, and a truck insured by the appellant in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972. The respondent instituted an action in a Provincial Division for damages against the appellant as well as against the executrix of E B's estate (B had died in the accident) as second defendant. The latter admitted liability for damages at the commencement of the trial but made no admission regarding the quantum of damages. As regards the claim against the appellant, both the merits and the quantum were in dispute. An agreement was however reached in terms of which the trial Court was requested to determine the issue of liability first and to let the matter of quantum stand over for later adjudication. The trial Court F found that the driver of the truck had been negligent and that respondent's claim in respect of the merits of the case against both appellant and the second defendant had to succeed and that they were jointly and severally liable for respondent's damages. Without the issue of quantum having been determined either by agreement or by way of litigation, the appellant appealed against the trial Court's decision. On appeal, the question was whether the judgment of the trial Court was a 'judgment or order' as intended by s 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 G of 1959 and accordingly whether it was appealable.

Held, that the decisive question which had to be answered was what the aim of the parties had been with the litigation and what the Court had intended to achieve in its judgment.

Held, further, that with its judgment the trial Court had intended, despite the awkward way in which it was worded, to make a final decision regarding the liability of the appellant - it had not been the Court's intention to come to a provisional conclusion which could be altered or H amended.

Held, further, that the trial Court had in effect issued a declaratory order to the effect that the appellant was jointly and severally liable for any proven damages the respondent might have suffered as a result of the collision.

Held, therefore, that such judgment constituted an appealable judgment or order in that it had a final and decisive effect on the litigation in which the parties were engaged.

I Held, finally, on the facts, that the appeal had to be upheld.

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Harford v SA Eagle Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk en 'n Ander reversed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling J (Heyns R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak.

1992 (2) SA p788

A N G D Maritz namens die appellant het na die volgende gesag verwys: Botha v AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd and Another 1968 (4) SA 485 (A); Government Mining Engineer v National Union of Mineworkers and Others 1990 (4) SA 692 (W); Van Streepen & Germs (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1987 (4) SA 569 (A); Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) B op 478F; Pullen v Pieterse 1954 (2) SA 195 (T) at 200H; Cooper Motor Law band 2 op 55 nota 55; Heyman v Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd 1964 (1) SA 487 (A); Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Nohamba 1986 (3) SA 27 (A); Dickinson and Another v Fisher's Executors 1914 AD 424; Union Government (Minister of the Interior) and Registrar of Asiatics v Naidoo 1916 AD 50; Nxaba v Nxaba 1926 AD 392; Shacklock v Shacklock 1949 (1) SA 91 (A); C Titus v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (3) SA 119 (A); Arthur v Bezuidenhout and Mieny 1962 (2) SA 566 (A); Sardi v Standard & General Insurance Co Ltd 1977 (3) SA 776 (A); Osborne Panama SA v Shell & BP South African Petroleum Refineries (Pty) Ltd and Others 1982 (4) SA 890 (A); Union & South West Africa Insurance Co Ltd v Quntana NO 1977 (4) SA 410 (A).

D D Mills namens die respondent het na die volgende gesag verwys: Heyman v Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd 1964 (1) SA 487 (A); Botha v AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd and Another 1968 (4) SA 485 (A); Van Streepen & Germs (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1987 (4) SA 569 (A); Government Mining Engineer v National Union of Mineworkers and E Others 1990 (4) SA 692 (W); Naude v Transvaal Boot & Shoe Manufacturing Co 1938 AD 379; AA Onderlinge Assuransie Bpk v De Beer 1982 (2) SA 603 (A); Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund v Dubuzane 1984 (1) SA 700 (A); P J W Schutte THRHR band 54 nr 3 op 495-507; Hlongwane and Others v Rector, St Francis College, and Others 1989 (3) SA 318 (D); Mnyama v Gxalaba and F Another 1990 (1) SA 650 (K); Mdani v Allianz Insurance Ltd...