94:
travelling. A number of other buses had been stoned or petrol-bombed on the same route a number of times during the previous four days. The route had even been closed for some months prior to the incident, due to unrest in the area, and had only been reopened some three weeks before the present incident. There was, the court found, a sufficiently close link between the injuries and the driving of the bus to conclude that the injuries had arisen out of such driving. A reasonable bus owner would have realised that there existed the real possibility of a serious attack on the bus on the route in question existed. The precautionary measures taken were found not to be sufficient, and the injuries sustained by the claimants due to the negligence of the owner of the bus.
36:
90:, Smalberger JA, F H Grosskopf JA and Van Coller AJA, on November 18, 1991, with judgment handed down on November 29. The appellant, whose attorneys were Silberbauers, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein, was represented by BM Griesel. The respondents, whose attorneys were Coulter, Van Gend & Kotze, Claremont, and Webbers, Bloemfontein, were represented by BJR Whitehead.
116:
sufficiently close link between the injuries and the driving of the bus to conclude that the injuries had arisen out of the driving of the bus. The bus was not merely being driven when the injuries were sustained; it was the very driving of the bus along the particular route which had elicited the petrolbombing. Van Coller AJA followed here the decision in
107:
started using that route again from
September 22, 1986. It was not contended in the Provincial Division that the respondents' injuries had been "caused by" the driving of the bus as intended in section 8(1) of the Act, but the Court found that the injuries arose out of the driving of the bus and held the appellant liable.
115:
In an appeal, the question for decision was whether the respondents had suffered injuries "arising out of the driving of" the bus as contemplated in section 8(1) of the Act. Van Coller AJA held, and the rest of the bench concurred, that there was, if one applied ordinary, common-sense standards, a
106:
It appeared that, during the four days prior to the attack in question, thirteen buses had been stoned or petrol-bombed along the same part of the route taken by the bus, or in that vicinity. The route had not been used by the bus-owner for some time during the 1985-1986 unrest, but the latter had
102:
On
October 11, 1986, the respondents sustained serious fire burns when the bus in which they were fare-paying passengers was attacked with petrol bombs. In an action instituted in a Provincial Division, in terms of section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, for damages for such injuries, the
125:
Having regard to the history of attacks on buses along the route in question, Van Coller AJA held that the reasonable bus-owner would have realised that a real possibility of a serious attack on buses on that route existed. It made no difference whether stones or petrol bombs were used. The judge
93:
The question was whether or not, in terms of section 8(1) of Motor
Vehicle Accidents Act, the injuries to the claimants had been "caused by or aris out of the driving of a motor vehicle." The claimants' injuries, fire burns, had been caused by petrol-bomb attack on the bus in which they were
130:, therefore, had correctly found that the fire burns sustained by the respondents were due to the negligence of the owner of the bus. The appeal was thus dismissed and the decision of Nel J in the Cape Provincial Division, in
103:
appellant, as defendant, pleaded that the injuries were not caused by nor arose out of the driving of the bus as intended in section 8(1). It was also denied that either the owner or the driver of the bus had been negligent.
414:
494:
391:
266:
242:
406:
57:
509:
290:
398:
378:
298:
210:
504:
203:
170:
234:
190:
274:
86:, particularly the area of compensation for motor vehicle accidents. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, by Joubert JA,
17:
354:
282:
250:
258:
370:
440:
434:
428:
314:
218:
386:
330:
48:
322:
83:
499:
175:
118:
126:
held, further, on the facts, that the precautions taken by the bus-owner had not been sufficient. The Court
306:
198:
226:
362:
346:
182:
338:
87:
35:
488:
407:
Van Wyk and Others v
Netherlands Assurance Co of SA Ltd and Others
267:
Mokoele v
National Employers' General Insurance Co Ltd and Another
132:
Xhego and Others v
General Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd
79:
General
Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others
18:
General
Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others
29:
157:
The Law of
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance in South Africa
291:
53:
415:
Wells and Another v Shield Insurance Co Ltd and Others
399:
Van der Poel v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie Bpk
379:
Sehire v Central Board for Co-operative Insurance Ltd
299:
Oosthuizen v London & Lancashire Insurance Co Ltd
211:
Goode v SA Mutual Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd
171:Barkett v SA Mutual Trust & Assurance Co Ltd
235:Hoffmann v South African Railways and Harbours
191:Churchill v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd
8:
275:Ngedle v Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd
355:Roos v AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd
283:Ngubane v South African Transport Services
251:Khoza v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd
243:Kemp v Santam Insurance Co Ltd and Another
259:Mfihlo v Port Elizabeth Municipal Council
371:Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Kemp
495:Appellate Division (South Africa) cases
453:
441:Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
435:Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986
429:Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 29 of 1942
315:Philander v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd
7:
219:Groenewald v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
387:South African Railways v Symington
331:Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Matinise
25:
47:to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s
323:Pillay v Santam Insurance Co Ltd
34:
1:
510:South African delict case law
84:South African law of delict
526:
505:1991 in South African law
155:Suzman, Gordon and Hodes
119:Wells v Shield Insurance
60:may contain suggestions.
45:may need to be rewritten
27:South African legal case
262:1976 (3) SA 183 (SE).
478:1965 (2) SA 865 (C).
460:1992 (1) SA 580 (A).
418:1965 (2) SA 865 (C).
410:1971 (2) SA 264 (W).
402:1980 (3) SA 341 (T).
382:1976 (1) SA 524 (W).
366:1977 (1) SA 761 (C).
358:1974 (4) SA 295 (C).
350:1950 (2) SA 205 (N).
342:1947 (3) SA 141 (A).
334:1978 (1) SA 963 (A).
318:1963 (1) SA 561 (C).
310:1961 (1) SA 205 (C).
302:1956 (2) SA 319 (C).
294:1985 (1) SA 824 (O).
286:1991 (1) SA 756 (A).
254:1969 (3) SA 590 (W).
246:1975 (2) SA 329 (C).
238:1955 (4) SA 476 (A).
230:1954 (3) SA 464 (A).
222:1979 (1) SA 354 (C).
214:1979 (4) SA 301 (W).
194:1977 (1) SA 506 (A).
186:1953 (2) SA 540 (A).
374:1971 (3) SA 305 (A)
326:1978 (3) SA 43 (D).
278:1969 (4) SA 19 (W).
270:1984 (1) SA 27 (T).
307:Petersen v Santam
199:Goabashe v Uniswa
82:is a case in the
75:
74:
49:quality standards
16:(Redirected from
517:
500:1991 in case law
479:
476:
470:
467:
461:
458:
227:Herschel v Mrupe
70:
67:
61:
38:
30:
21:
525:
524:
520:
519:
518:
516:
515:
514:
485:
484:
483:
482:
477:
473:
469:Act 84 of 1986.
468:
464:
459:
455:
450:
425:
166:
145:
140:
113:
100:
71:
65:
62:
52:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
523:
521:
513:
512:
507:
502:
497:
487:
486:
481:
480:
471:
462:
452:
451:
449:
446:
445:
444:
438:
432:
424:
421:
420:
419:
411:
403:
395:
383:
375:
367:
359:
351:
343:
335:
327:
319:
311:
303:
295:
287:
279:
271:
263:
255:
247:
239:
231:
223:
215:
207:
195:
187:
179:
165:
162:
161:
160:
153:
144:
141:
139:
136:
112:
109:
99:
96:
88:Van Heerden JA
73:
72:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
522:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
492:
490:
475:
472:
466:
463:
457:
454:
447:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
422:
417:
416:
412:
409:
408:
404:
401:
400:
396:
393:
389:
388:
384:
381:
380:
376:
373:
372:
368:
365:
364:
363:Samson v Winn
360:
357:
356:
352:
349:
348:
344:
341:
340:
336:
333:
332:
328:
325:
324:
320:
317:
316:
312:
309:
308:
304:
301:
300:
296:
293:
292:
288:
285:
284:
280:
277:
276:
272:
269:
268:
264:
261:
260:
256:
253:
252:
248:
245:
244:
240:
237:
236:
232:
229:
228:
224:
221:
220:
216:
213:
212:
208:
205:
201:
200:
196:
193:
192:
188:
185:
184:
180:
177:
173:
172:
168:
167:
163:
158:
154:
151:
147:
146:
142:
137:
135:
133:
129:
123:
121:
120:
110:
108:
104:
97:
95:
91:
89:
85:
81:
80:
69:
59:
55:
50:
46:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
19:
474:
465:
456:
413:
405:
397:
385:
377:
369:
361:
353:
347:R v Msimango
345:
337:
329:
321:
313:
305:
297:
289:
281:
273:
265:
257:
249:
241:
233:
225:
217:
209:
197:
189:
183:Brown v Hunt
181:
169:
156:
149:
131:
127:
124:
117:
114:
105:
101:
92:
78:
77:
76:
66:January 2024
63:
54:You can help
44:
443:56 of 1972.
423:Legislation
339:R v Du Toit
134:confirmed.
489:Categories
138:References
202:1966 (1)
174:1951 (2)
150:Motor Law
58:talk page
206:O29 (D).
178:353 (A).
111:Judgment
159:3rd ed.
148:Cooper
152:vol 2.
56:. The
448:Notes
390:1935
164:Cases
143:Books
128:a quo
98:Facts
394:37.
491::
392:AD
204:PH
176:SA
122:.
437:.
431:.
68:)
64:(
51:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
