Smith v Road Accident Fund

A fare-paying passenger, Mary Pedro, was injured in a motor vehicle collision while being transported in a vehicle negligently driven by the appellant, Sias Smith. Pedro sued Smith for damages. Smith alleged that unidentified vehicles also contributed to the collision. Because the owners and drivers of those vehicles were unknown, Smith joined the Road Accident Fund (RAF) as a third party, contending that the RAF was obliged under s 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 to compensate Pedro and that, if Smith were found partly negligent, the RAF should be regarded as a joint wrongdoer liable to contribute or indemnify him under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956. The RAF objected, arguing that it could not be joined as a joint wrongdoer and owed no indemnity to a negligent driver. The High Court upheld the RAF’s objection, and Smith appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs; the High Court’s order dismissing the third party claim against the Road Accident Fund was upheld.

The case clarifies that the Road Accident Fund’s statutory liability is confined to compensating victims of road accidents and does not extend to indemnifying or contributing to negligent drivers. It confirms that the RAF cannot be treated as a joint wrongdoer under the Apportionment of Damages Act in unidentified vehicle cases, reinforcing the strict and limited scope of the Fund’s obligations.