In the matter between:

versus

JUDGMENT

This is an action for damages by the plaintiff, Ms Johnson, against the defendant, the Road Accident Fund. On the application of the plaintiff, I ordered that the issue of liability be determined first and that the issue of quantum stand over.

The claim arises from injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff when the left front of the Golf 4 motor vehicle driven by her collided with the rear end of the Mercedes Benz motor vehicle driven by Ms A Patterson on 20 June 2003 at the intersection between the off-ramp of the M3 highway and the Ladies Mile Road. I shall refer to this road simply as the
Ladies Mile. Prior to the collision, both vehicles had driven along the M3 from the direction of Muizenberg in a northerly direction. It was approximately midday on a week day and although it was winter, the weather was fine and it was not raining. Both vehicles took the Ladies Mile off-ramp and proceeded for approximately 500 metres round a sharp bend to a point where the off-ramp, now running south to north, ends in a T-junction with the Ladies Mile at a point where that road runs east to west. The Ladies Mile is a double carriageway with two lanes running to the east and two lanes to the west. The speed limit on this stretch of the Ladies Mile is 60 kilometres per hour. Both drivers, who had regularly driven that road in the past, intended to turn left, as they regularly did, into the Ladies Mile at the intersection, and then to proceed immediately into the right-hand lane in order to be in a position to turn right at a robot-controlled intersection some 50 metres from the point where they entered Ladies Mile. Vehicles intending to turn towards the right into Ladies Mile at the intersection have to stop at a stop sign. Those vehicles who intend turning to the left into Ladies Mile, as both drivers intended to do, must proceed through a yield sign. The Ladies Mile passes over a bridge over the M3 highway some 150 metres towards the east of the intersection. Although there were and still apparently are some low bushes on a traffic  island  at the  intersection  and  a  traffic sign  some distance away towards the right, the view of a driver at the intersection to the right along Ladies Mile does not appear to be obstructed. The view is clear up to the crest of the bridge some 150m away towards the right.

What happened at the intersection is largely common cause. Ms Patterson arrived first and slowed down and looked towards her right to see whether it was safe to turn left into Ladies Mile. She saw no vehicles approaching from the right, she testified, and she accelerated slightly while she entered the intersection. When she looked towards her right again, she now saw a vehicle approaching from the right. The vehicle must just have come over the crest of the bridge at that time. The approaching vehicle was traveling in the left lane and was still beyond the turn-off onto the on-ramp some distance away from the intersection. Ms Patterson judged, according to her evidence, that the vehicle was approaching "rapidly", but not "very fast". Her natural instinct was, she stated, to give way to the approaching vehicle. Although she was now already partially into the intersection, she stopped her vehicle and the plaintiff's vehicle, which was then right behind her, collided with her vehicle from behind.

The exact place where the collision occurred is in dispute. According to the plaintiff, it was somewhere in the left lane of the Ladies Mile, close to the broken line dividing the two lanes. Ms Patterson agrees that her vehicle was in the left lane but says that it was closer to the entrance of the intersection. The dispute is therefore only about how far into the left lane of the Ladies Mile the collision had occurred.

It is common cause that both drivers removed their vehicles to a safe place after the collision at the side of the road where they exchanged their personal details. According to the plaintiff, Ms Patterson apologised, saying that when she saw the vehicle approaching, she panicked and stopped. Ms Patterson stated that she would not have said that it was her fault, but concedes that she might have apologised for what had happened.

Ms Patterson was never aware of the plaintiff's vehicle before the collision. The plaintiff stated that she first became aware of the insured vehicle driven by Ms Patterson ahead of her as she approached the  intersection.The  insured vehicle, according to her, slowed down and might even have momentarily stopped, but it then moved forward into the intersection and turned towards its left to go into the right lane of Ladies Mile. The plaintiff looked towards her right and as she entered the intersection, she saw a vehicle coming over the bridge approaching the intersection.     She judged it far enough for her to follow the insured vehicle and to pass safely into the right lane of Ladies Mile. The two vehicles were more or less, she indicated slightly more than half a car's length apart, when the insured vehicle stopped without warning, and although the plaintiff braked, she could not avoid the collision and the left front of her vehicle collided with the back of the insured vehicle.

Having indicated to following traffic that she was going to proceed by accelerating after first slowing down, Ms Patterson was negligent in then suddenly stopping for no good reason while she was already into the intersection. Such conduct in my view falls short of the conduct of a reasonable person in those circumstances. A reasonable driver would not have misjudged the speed and distance of the approaching vehicle and would not suddenly have stopped in the intersection. Ms Patterson's negligent conduct was also, on the facts of this case, a cause of the collision.

In my view it would be just and equitable to apportion the degree of fault in relation to the alleged damage at 80% in the case of Ms Patterson and 20% in the case of the plaintiff.

Having heard the argument of both counsel on costs, I now proceed.

It follows that the following order is made:-

1. 	It is declared that the defendant is liable to pay the  plaintiff 80% of such damages as she may in due 	course prove to have sustained as the result of the collision which occurred on 20 June 2003.
2.	The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff in regard to the determination of the issue of the defendant's liability. The costs of the rest of the trial will stand over for later determination,