De Wet and Another v President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Schock J
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1978
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Schock J:

First and second plaintiffs sue defendant as insurer of a mechanical horse and trailer for personal damages suffered in a collision between a Rover motor car driven by first plaintiff (to whom I shall hereinafter refer simply as plaintiff), and the said mechanical horse driven by one Rhoode.

Para 5 of plaintiff's particulars of claim as amended reads:

D "Gemelde botsing is veroorsaak deur en is uitsluitlik te wyte aan die nalatigheid van gemelde Rhoode wie nalatig was in een of meer van die volgende opsigte:

(a)

Hy het versuim om 'n behoorlike uitsig te hou en het versuim om behoorlike aandag en oplettendheid aan die dag te lê by die bestuur van gemelde meganiese perd en sleepwa;

(b)

hy het E te vinnig gery;

(c)

hy het versuim om gemelde voertuie onder behoorlike beheer te hou;

(d)

hy het bestuur sonder om enige of voldoende ag te slaan op die teenwoordigheid van voertuig nommer CA625 en het versuim om sy bestuur aan te pas en te reguleer soos hy behoort te gedoen het;

(e)

hy het regs F gedraai

(i)

sonder om enige of genoegsame of tydige waarskuwing te gee van voorneme om dit te doen; en/of

(ii)

op 'n tydstip en op 'n wyse wat gevaarlik was; en/of

(iii)

sonder om enige of genoegsame ag G te slaan op die teenwoordigheid van voertuig nommer CA625.

(f)

Hy het op die verkeerde kant van die pad gery;

(g)

hy het versuim om enige of voldoende stappe te doen om die botsing te vermy toe hy in staat was om dit te doen.

(h)

Hy het gemelde voertuig op 'n openbare pad bestuur terwyl dit met ontoereikende truspieëls toegerus was en die bestuurder gevolglik H nie 'n voldoende uitsig van die pad agter hom gehad het nie."

Second plaintiff was a passenger in the car of her husband, plaintiff. Defendant denied that Rhoode was negligent. Alternatively it denied that Rhoode's negligence was the cause of the collision. Defendant further pleaded in the alternative that the accident was caused by the fault of both plaintiff and Rhoode. Defendant alleged in this regard that plaintiff was reckless and grossly negligent in the following respects:

Schock J

(i)

hy het teen 'n buitensporige hoë spoed gery;

(ii)

hy het nie behoorlik uitgekyk nie;

(iii)

hy het gemelde meganiese perd CL9046 en gemelde sleepwa CL9047 op 'n gevaarlike en ongeleë stadium probeer verbysteek;

(iv)

hy het versuim om 'n botsing te A vermy toe hy dit deur redelike voorsorg kon gedoen het.

Defendant also field a counterclaim claiming that, in the event of second plaintiff succeeding in her claim against it for damages, there be an order declaring plaintiff a joint wrongdoer in respect of such collision B and damage and further declaring what amount of the said damages awarded to second plaintiff it was entitled to recover from plaintiff. Plaintiff joined issue on this counterclaim.

Damages suffered by plaintiffs were agreed upon by the parties as follows: In respect of plaintiff R11 283 and in respect of second plaintiff R3 667,54.

C The facts of the matter shortly are that, on the evening of 10 February 1972, Rhoode was driving the mechanical horse with trailer attached - an articulated vehicle 52 feet long in all - on the main road near Koelenhof in the direction of Stellenbosch, ie north to south. The area is a rural one and the road in question is a wide one. At a point near the western D edge of the road and close to the turn-off to Blake's factory, plaintiff, driving a Rover car and accompanied by second plaintiff, collided with the vehicle driven by Rhoode. Plaintiff's vehicle collided with the right rear wheel of the mechanical horse. The collision took place between about 8.20 and 8.30 pm. It was a clear summer evening and not yet altogether dark - E "sterk skemer" was how the witnesses described it. The police plan (the substantial accuracy of which was not challenged) indicates the point of impact. The plan also...