The Western Cape Division of the High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in Noluvuyo Simayile-Sigijimi vs Road Accident Fund. This case highlighted key issues of negligence and liability in pedestrian-related road accident claims.
The claimant was struck by a minibus taxi while walking on the pavement along Vanguard Expressway in Mitchell’s Plain. The taxi driver made an illegal U-turn at a red traffic light. He then mounted the pavement and collided with the claimant. She sustained multiple injuries. These included a head injury, a fracture of the right supra-orbital wall and neuralgia.
Allegations of negligence
The claimant argued that the driver was negligent in several ways. He failed to keep a proper lookout, drove at an excessive speed and made a dangerous U-turn.
A witness for the claimant testified that the accident occurred while they were walking on the pavement, away from the road surface. Although the plaintiff did not specifically plead that the taxi mounted the pavement, the court accepted the testimony.
The court found that the testimony aligned with the broader allegations of negligence set out in the pleadings. Ultimately, the court found that the taxi driver acted negligently. However, it also cautioned legal representatives to ensure that the case they intend to lead is properly reflected in the pleadings.
The evidence clearly showed that the driver mounted the pavement and struck the plaintiff. Striking a pedestrian on the pavement, in this context, constituted prima facie evidence of negligence.
Caution to motorists
The judgment reaffirmed that motorists owe pedestrians a duty to exercise reasonable care. Striking a pedestrian on the pavement is inherently negligent and requires no further proof of fault in such circumstances. As a result, the Road Accident Fund was held liable for the plaintiff’s proven damages.
This judgment underscores the obligation of motorists to exercise reasonable care toward pedestrians, especially those walking on pavements. It also reinforces that striking a pedestrian on the pavement carries not only physical and emotional consequences, but also clear legal liability.
It also has practical implications for third-party liability claims. Striking a pedestrian on a sidewalk amounts to prima facie evidence of negligence. In addition, the judgment serves as a cautionary reminder to litigating parties.
The judgment emphasises the importance of ensuring that their pleadings properly reflect the case they intend to lead. This helps inform the opposing party and assists the court in clearly identifying the factual and legal issues in dispute.
| Raynold Tlhavani | Partner | mail me | |  |
| Rethabile Shabalala | Senior Associate | mail me | |  |
| Roberto Brown | Candidate Attorney | mail me | |  |
| | Webber Wentzel | | |
