Road Accident Fund v Van den Berg

The respondent sued the Road Accident Fund for damages arising from the death of her husband, who was killed in a collision involving a Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller (PTR). The RAF raised a special plea contending that the PTR did not qualify as a ‘motor vehicle’ as defined in section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, and that the claim should therefore fail. The High Court held that the PTR was a motor vehicle under the Act and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court’s finding that the PTR is a ‘motor vehicle’ under the Act was confirmed.

The case clarifies the interpretation of ‘motor vehicle’ under the Road Accident Fund Act, confirming that the test is objective and that general, ordinary use of a vehicle on public roads is a relevant factor. It broadens the scope of RAF liability to include certain construction and industrial vehicles.