Posthumus v The Road Accident Fund

During the early hours of 20 May 2003, Mr and Mrs Posthumus were passengers in a minibus driven by Mr Maritz on the N14 near Sannieshof. The minibus left the road and overturned after Maritz was allegedly dazzled by the bright headlights of a bakkie parked on the inside of a sharp curve with its headlights shining into the roadway. Mr and Mrs Posthumus were injured and sued the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, alleging that the negligence of the unidentified bakkie driver contributed to the accident. Although Maritz’s negligence was admitted, the dispute was whether the bakkie driver was also causally negligent, which would remove the limitation of liability under s 18(1)(b) of the Act. The trial court rejected the existence of the bakkie and limited RAF’s liability. The full court agreed that a bakkie was present but held that causation was not established. The matter proceeded on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the full court was set aside, and the trial court’s order was amended by deleting the limitation of liability under s 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The respondent’s application for a postponement was dismissed with costs.

This case is significant for clarifying that a motorist who leaves a stationary vehicle’s headlights shining into a roadway can be negligent and causally liable for resulting accidents. It confirms that such conduct arises from the driving of a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act, thereby extending RAF liability beyond cases of physical contact. The judgment contributes to South African delictual jurisprudence on foreseeability, causation, and negligence in road accident cases.