The respondent instituted action against the Road Accident Fund for damages suffered by her and her two minor sons when her husband and father of her children died as a result of injuries suffered in a collision with a Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller (PTR). The PTR was approximately 2 meters wide, 4.7 meters long and 3.3 meters high, with a basic weight of 13.8 tons. It was fitted with a three-speed gearbox, pneumatic tyres, headlights, rear lights, parking lights, hazard lights, rotating beacon, hooter, side view mirrors, direction indicators, reflectors, footbrake, handbrake, emergency handbrake, and was powered by a four-cylinder turbo diesel engine with power steering. Evidence showed that the PTR was commonly used to travel on public roads from one construction site to another, covering distances of up to 10 kilometres at a time, two or three times a week, traveling at a maximum speed of 20 km per hour.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court's ruling that a Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller falls within the definition of 'motor vehicle' in section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 was upheld.
A vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 if it was objectively designed for propulsion on a road, even if that is not its primary purpose. The test is objective and requires consideration of: (1) the ordinary, everyday and general purposes for which the vehicle was conceived and constructed as perceived by a reasonable person; (2) the general use actually made of the vehicle, which is an objectively determinable fact relevant to determining design purpose; and (3) whether the design features of the vehicle enable it to be safely used on a road. A vehicle will not qualify as a motor vehicle only if driving it on a road would be extraordinarily difficult and hazardous unless special precautions or adaptations were effected. Where a vehicle is generally used to travel on public roads as part of its normal operations and is fitted with safety features enabling such use, it must be regarded as having been designed for propulsion on a road, regardless of its other purposes.
The court disagreed with Marais JA's interpretation in Road Accident Fund v Vogel that Olivier JA in Chauke v Santam Ltd had posited both a subjective and objective test. Streicher JA clarified that Olivier JA was referring only to an objective test - the general purpose for which the vehicle, objectively determined, was conceived and constructed. The court also observed that while certain design features of the PTR (such as headlamps and brake lights) may be required for its primary compacting purpose, this is an irrelevant consideration when determining whether it was also designed for road use. The court noted that vehicles do from time to time travel at speeds of 20 km per hour or less and all reasonable drivers are aware of this fact, suggesting that low maximum speed alone does not render a vehicle unsuitable for road use.
This case is significant in South African law as it provides important clarification on the interpretation of 'motor vehicle' under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. It establishes that the definition is not limited to vehicles primarily designed for road use, but extends to vehicles designed for multiple purposes including road use. The judgment clarifies that the test for determining whether a vehicle was designed for propulsion on a road is purely objective (contrary to suggestions in Vogel). It confirms that the general use to which a vehicle is put is a relevant and important consideration in objectively determining its design purpose. The case extends the scope of the Road Accident Fund's liability to cover accidents involving construction and industrial vehicles that regularly use public roads as part of their normal operations, providing greater protection to victims of road accidents involving such vehicles.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate