Gauteng High Court rules RAF not liable when a vehicle is used as a weapon

In a Road Accident Fund claim with a twist, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that when a car is used as a weapon, the fund is not liable to compensate the victim.

With negligence not proven and intention not pleaded in this case, the damages claim was turned down.

The plaintiff, Oscar Mashengani, in claiming from the fund for the injuries he had suffered after he was hit by a vehicle, remained mum in court regarding the exact circumstances under which he was injured.

But several witnesses who were present during the late-night New Year’s brawl, when the incident occurred, shed light on exactly what had happened.

On New Year’s Day 2019, the plaintiff and his two friends enjoyed the festivities that come with ushering in of a new year, and they were at the Fish Point Tavern, situated in the Vleifontein area in Louis Trichardt.

In the early hours of the morning, the tavern owner told the plaintiff and his friends to leave. He eventually switched off the music, and the plaintiff then asked the owner to lend him a bucket to place the remaining liquor, at the time they were asked to leave.

The tavern owner acceded to the request, but one of the patrons, Tendani Ramunenyiwa, the driver of the vehicle that later ran into Mashengani, was apparently opposed to the idea of the plaintiff taking a bucket belonging to the tavern.

As a result, an argument ensued between the plaintiff and Ramunenyiwa over the removal of the bucket. This argument culminated in a physical scuffle between the two. Both assaulted each other until other patrons separated them.

In order to continue with the fight, Ramunenyiwa got into his vehicle, drove it, and aimed it at the plaintiff and his friends, the court was told. In this process, he knocked the plaintiff down. When he wanted to run him over for the second time, he was restrained by people on the scene.

The injured Mashengani was taken to a nearby clinic for treatment. A case of attempted murder was later opened against Ramunenyiwa.

The evidence contained in the case docket, obtained from people on the scene, was served before Judge Graham Moshoane in the claim against the RAF.

The plaintiff, without tendering the evidence of his friends, meanwhile, testified as a single witness in his case. He confirmed that he was at the tavern at the time and that an argument broke out between him and Ramunenyiwa over the bucket.

However, he said, he left the tavern with his friends, and while walking away on a gravel road on the right-hand side, facing oncoming traffic, he heard people shouting “hey”, and he looked back.

As he looked back, a vehicle came driving fast and hit him on the left foot; he fell and rolled. He could do nothing to avoid the vehicle, he told the court.

Mashengani continued that he does not know why he was hit by the vehicle and remained mum that the vehicle was, in fact, used as an attempted murder weapon.

Judge Moshoane concluded that the plaintiff had failed to discharge his onus to prove negligence on the part of the insured driver.

“Only intention was shown, and as such, the RAF is not liable to compensate,” the judge said.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za