The Western Cape Division of the High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in
Noluvuyo Simayile-Sigijimi v Road Accident Fund, highlighting 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 had made an illegal U-turn against a red traffic light and mounted the pavement, colliding with the claimant. She sustained multiple injuries, including a head injury, a fracture of the right supra-orbital wall, and neuralgia. The claimant argued that the driver was negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout, driving at an excessive speed, and making 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, conduct that would constitute negligence, the court accepted that the testimony aligned with the broader allegations of negligence set out in the pleadings.The court ultimately found that the taxi driver was negligent, while cautioning legal representatives to "ensure that the case they intend to lead is properly reflected in the pleadings". The evidence clearly established that the driver mounted the pavement and struck the plaintiff, which constituted
prima facie evidence of negligence. The court reaffirmed that motorists owe pedestrians a duty of to exercise reasonable care, and that striking a pedestrian on the sidewalk is inherently negligent.
As a result, the Road Accident Fund (RAF) was held liable for the plaintiff's proven damages.
This judgment underscores the obligation of motorists to exercise reasonable care toward pedestrians, particularly those walking on pavements. It also carries practical implications for third-party liability claims: striking a pedestrian on a sidewalk is
prima facie evidence of negligence. Additionally, the judgment serves as a cautionary reminder to litigating parties to ensure their pleadings properly reflect the case they intend to lead, both to inform the opposing party and to assist the court in clearly identifying the factual and legal issues in dispute.
Read the judgment here.
