88:
in section 8(1). The very reason why the driver had removed the filler cap of the main fuel tank was because he had experienced trouble while driving the truck. His act in opening the stopcock and removing and replacing the filler cap was intended to rectify the problem, and to allow him to continue driving the vehicle. The direct result of that ancillary act was the spilling of the diesel, which caused the accident and the resultant damage. In the circumstances, common sense dictated that the death and injuries had arisen from the driving of G the second defendant's truck.
58:
vehicle's fuel supply, opened a stopcock, which permitted diesel fuel to flow into the main fuel tank from another tank. He also opened the filler cap of the main fuel tank, to inspect its interior. Thereafter he not only omitted to close the stopcock, but also omitted properly to replace the filler cap. As a result, diesel escaped from the main fuel tank onto the road surface, thus causing the accident. One person suffered injuries and another died as a result of the accident.
28:. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on November 17, 2000, with judgment handed down the same day. GM MacKenzie was counsel, as State Attorney, for the plaintiff; CJ Hartzenberg SC appeared for the first defendant. There was no appearance for the second defendant. The presiding officer was Combrinck J, to whom fell the adjudication of a stated case in an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
45:
driving. The court would have to have regard to the facts of case and to apply ordinary, common-sense standards in determining whether or not there existed a causal connection between the damage and the driving sufficiently real and close to enable it to say that the death or injury had "aris out of" the driving.
80:
particular facts of the case and whether, applying ordinary common-sense standards, it could be said that the causal connection between the death or injury and the driving was sufficiently real and close to enable the court to say that the death or injury did indeed arise out of the driving. The dictum in
87:
Combrinck J held, on the facts, that there was a sufficiently close link between the injuries and death, on the one hand, and the driving of the second defendant's truck, on the other, to justify the conclusion that the injuries and death had "arisen out of" the driving of the truck, as contemplated
57:
A collision had occurred between two vehicles when one of them skidded on diesel that had spilled from a truck belonging to the second defendant. The truck had broken down alongside the road. It appeared that, after the truck had broken down, the driver, supposing that there was a problem with the
48:
In the present case, the spillage of fuel from a stationary vehicle onto the road surface, as a result of the driver's attempt to rectify a fault in the fuel system, that he might continue driving, had caused other vehicles to skid on the fuel and collide, resulting both in injuries and in deaths.
44:
concept: The court held that it ought to be guided by the object and the scope of the Act, and by notions of common sense. It was possible that, where the direct cause of the damage was some act antecedent or ancillary to the driving, such damage might be said nonetheless to have "aris out of" the
75:
concept, however, could bring about consequences never contemplated or intended by the
Legislature. Combrinck J decided, therefore, that some limitation must be placed on the application of this concept: The Court should be guided by a consideration of the object and the scope of the Act, and by
35:
The question was whether or not the injuries resulting from the accident were "caused by or aris out of the driving of a motor vehicle" as contemplated in section 8(1) of the Act. Words "caused by" referred to the direct cause of the injury, while the words "arising out of" referred to the case
66:
The court found that the words "caused by" in section 8(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Accidents Act refer to the direct cause of the injury, whereas the words "arising out of" refer to the case where the injury, although not directly caused by the driving, is nevertheless causally connected with the
79:
Where the direct cause of death or bodily injury is some act antecedent or ancillary to the driving, it could not normally be said that the death or injury was "caused by" the driving, but it might be found to have arisen out of the driving. Whether that could be found would depend upon the
116:
136:
49:
These the court found to have "aris out of" the driving of the truck, notwithstanding the fact that the truck was stationary at the time of the accident.
264:
36:
where the injury, although not directly caused by the driving, was nevertheless causally connected with the driving, and where the driving was a
269:
274:
162:
150:
128:
25:
174:
156:
121:
32:
168:
258:
40:
thereof. Some limitation, however, had to be placed on the application of the
117:
General
Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others
82:
General
Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others
21:
Minister of Safety and
Security v Road Accident Fund and Another
31:
The case concerned a claim for compensation in terms of the
137:
Wells and
Another v Shield Insurance Co Ltd and Others
8:
71:thereof. An uncontrolled application of the
163:Multilateral Motor Vehicles Accidents Act
187:
151:Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
7:
14:
129:Grobler v Santam Versekering Bpk
103:Juta's Statutes of South Africa
265:2000 in South African case law
1:
270:South African delict case law
67:driving and the driving is a
275:KwaZulu-Natal Division cases
24:is an important case in the
157:Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
33:Motor Vehicle Accidents Act
26:South African law of delict
291:
175:Workmen's Compensation Act
76:notions of common sense.
16:South African legal case
169:Road Accident Fund Act
230:1992 (1) SA 580 (A).
194:2001 (4) SA 979 (N).
140:1965 (2) SA 865 (C).
132:1996 (2) SA 643 (T).
248:985I-986A, 986D-E.
84:was thus applied.
73:causa sine qua non
203:Case No. 1171/88.
282:
249:
246:
240:
237:
231:
228:
222:
219:
213:
210:
204:
201:
195:
192:
290:
289:
285:
284:
283:
281:
280:
279:
255:
254:
253:
252:
247:
243:
238:
234:
229:
225:
220:
216:
212:Act 84 of 1986.
211:
207:
202:
198:
193:
189:
184:
147:
112:
99:
94:
64:
55:
17:
12:
11:
5:
288:
286:
278:
277:
272:
267:
257:
256:
251:
250:
241:
232:
223:
214:
205:
196:
186:
185:
183:
180:
179:
178:
172:
166:
160:
154:
146:
143:
142:
141:
133:
125:
111:
108:
107:
106:
98:
95:
93:
90:
63:
60:
54:
51:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
287:
276:
273:
271:
268:
266:
263:
262:
260:
245:
242:
236:
233:
227:
224:
218:
215:
209:
206:
200:
197:
191:
188:
181:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
148:
144:
139:
138:
134:
131:
130:
126:
123:
119:
118:
114:
113:
109:
104:
101:
100:
96:
91:
89:
85:
83:
77:
74:
70:
61:
59:
52:
50:
46:
43:
39:
34:
29:
27:
23:
22:
244:
235:
226:
217:
208:
199:
190:
135:
127:
115:
102:
86:
81:
78:
72:
69:sine qua non
68:
65:
56:
47:
42:sine qua non
41:
38:sine qua non
37:
30:
20:
19:
18:
177:30 of 1941.
171:56 of 1996.
165:84 of 1986.
159:29 of 1942.
153:56 of 1972.
105:1995 vol 4.
259:Categories
221:984F-985D.
92:References
120:1992 (1)
145:Statutes
124:580 (A).
62:Judgment
239:586A-E.
182:Notes
110:Cases
97:Books
53:Facts
261::
122:SA
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.