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 sustained bodily injuries in the collision that occurred in Paarl when she was driving home from work on January 27 2018.
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 a separated issue, namely, the determination 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 known only as Tupac, who had been negligent in that he drove at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper lookout.
She said the driver failed to apply the brakes of his vehicle timeously, adequately or at all. She said he drove the vehicle with its head lights on bright, which blinded her; and he disregarded the safety of other road users and specifically her.
She said the road where the collision occurred was dark because there were no streetlights.
“As she rounded a bend in the road, she noticed the insured 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,” judge Lister Nuku said as he summarised her testimony.
She said the bright lights of the vehicle confused and shocked her. She could not remember anything after the vehicle passed her, as everything went blank and she could not see. She lost control of her vehicle, which veered off to the opposite side of the road and collided with a boundary wall.
She said everything happened within seconds, leaving her no time to apply her brakes.
She was assisted from the scene of the collision and taken to Paarl Hospital.
It was argued on behalf of Van Rhyn that the driver’s failure to dim the lights of the vehicle constituted negligence because it is 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 that the woman 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 the woman’s evidence did not clarify how her vehicle left the road and collided with a stationary object, the boundary wall.
“All she could say is that the bright lights confused and shocked her to the point that everything went blank,” the judge said.
The reason why (her) vehicle continued driving after the brief effect of the blinding lights has not been explained.
— Judge Lister Nuku
He said it was clear from the evidence that the collision with the wall occurred after the vehicle had passed hers.
“The reason why (her) vehicle continued driving after the brief effect of the blinding lights has not been explained.”
He said while he was prepared to accept that it was negligent of the other driver to keep his lights bright in the face of oncoming traffic, that cannot explain a collision with an object that is far removed from the road.
All the court cases that the woman’s lawyers relied on involved a collision with objects in the immediate vicinity of the road, he said.
“The plaintiff’s case is compounded by the fact that the collision happened near her home and it is reasonable to assume that she is pretty familiar with the area.
“Her testimony was that she had just come out of the bend when she first saw the insured vehicle, so it is not as if she was still approaching or navigating the curve when she was affected by the insured vehicle’s lights.”
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 boundary wall that the plaintiff’s vehicle collided with was not immediately next to the road, he said.
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.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.