RAF cleared in boundary wall collision case
A motorist who collided with a boundary wall on the opposite side of the road after being blinded by an oncoming vehicle’s bright lights has failed in her claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF).
Nicolene van Rhyn was injured in the collision in Paarl on 27 January 2018.
TimesLIVE reports that she instituted action against the RAF alleging that the damages she suffered were a result of injuries sustained in the collision caused by the other driver’s negligence.
By agreement between the parties, the trial proceeded only on the issue of the RAF’s liability, with the calculation of her claim reserved for later resolution.
Van Rhyn claimed the collision was caused by the sole negligence of the insured driver who allegedly drove at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper lookout.
‘As she rounded a bend in the road, she noticed the vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. It had its headlights on bright and was very close to her car. She flicked her vehicle’s lights to signal the insured driver to dim his, but there was no response,’ said Western Cape High Court Judge Lister Nuku.
TimesLIVE reports that it was argued on behalf of Van Rhyn that the driver’s failure to dim the lights of the vehicle constituted negligence because it was foreseeable that such conduct could lead to an accident.
It was argued that the driver’s failure to dim the lights was the sole cause of the collision and that the RAF should be held liable for all the damages that she can prove.
The RAF argued however that she had failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that her driving her vehicle into the wall was causally connected to the effect of the blinding lights of the insured vehicle.
Nuku said her evidence had significant gaps.
It only covered the period when she was still affected by the bright lights, with everything going blank afterward. The woman’s failure to explain how her motor vehicle collided with the wall was fatal to her case.
‘After all, the court is required to make its determination based on the evidence presented. In the absence of such evidence, the court is not required to speculate as to what could have caused the plaintiff’s motor vehicle to drive over the road and collide with a stationary boundary wall.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
