Masibulele Rautini v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

The appellant, Masibulele Rautini, was injured on 19 November 2011 while travelling as a passenger on a train operated by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) between Du Toit and Lynedoch stations in the Western Cape. He alleged that the carriage doors were open throughout the journey and that shortly before reaching Lynedoch station he was accosted by armed robbers, during which a scuffle ensued and he was thrown from the moving train. He sustained serious injuries and was later found at Spier station. The appellant sued PRASA for damages. The trial court separated merits and quantum, found PRASA liable on the merits, but on appeal the full court overturned that decision and dismissed the claim, largely relying on inconsistencies between the appellant’s oral evidence and statements contained in medical and ambulance records. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the full court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s appeal to that court with costs, thereby reinstating the trial court’s finding on liability in favour of the appellant.

This case is significant for clarifying the evidentiary status of discovered documents in civil proceedings, confirming that discovery does not render the contents admissible hearsay. It reinforces the strict application of section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, the duty to properly cross-examine witnesses, and the principle that courts may not decide cases on unpleaded issues. It also affirms PRASA’s liability for injuries caused by open train doors, consistent with Constitutional Court jurisprudence.