Cloete v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

On 14 November 2018, the plaintiff boarded a train at Kuils River station to attend a job interview. The carriage door was malfunctioning, repeatedly closing only 20% and then opening fully with a hissing sound, remaining open while the train was in motion. The plaintiff stood near the door, holding onto a pole. As the train approached Bellville station, passengers surged toward the exit, pushing the plaintiff. Despite yelling warnings and trying to push back, he lost his grip and was pushed out of the open door onto the railway tracks. He sustained a fracture of the left tibia and fibula and other injuries. He was found by Fire and Rescue Services between the tracks and taken by ambulance to Karl Bremer Hospital. The defendant denied the incident occurred in its environment and disputed any negligence.

• Whether the plaintiff was pushed from a moving train with open doors in the defendant's environment.
• Whether the defendant owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of commuters, particularly to keep train doors closed while in motion.
• Whether the defendant breached that duty and was negligent.
• Whether the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.
• Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The plaintiff's claim on the merits was upheld. The defendant was held 100% liable for the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's party-and-party costs, including counsel's fees on Scale B. Each party was to pay half the interpreter's costs. Trial on quantum was postponed sine die.

A public carrier such as PRASA has an actionable legal duty to keep train doors closed while the train is in motion to prevent passengers from being ejected. Failure to observe this basic safety-critical practice constitutes negligence, and where such omission is causally linked to a passenger's injuries, the carrier is liable. A passenger who stands near an open door in a moving train does not necessarily assume the risk or become contributorily negligent if pushed out due to a surge of other passengers.

The court noted that the plaintiff was not obligated to report the incident to PRASA or the police to validate his claim, and that his inability to recall minor details like the exact time of a job interview did not undermine his credibility. It also commented that the defendant's reporting protocols were susceptible to human error and that the absence of an incident recorded in internal logs did not mean the incident did not occur in the defendant's environment.

This case reinforces the stringent legal duty of public carriers like PRASA to ensure commuter safety, particularly the obligation to keep train doors closed while traversing. It confirms the principles laid down in Mashongwa v PRASA regarding the foreseeability of harm from open doors and the standard of the 'reasonable organ of state'. The judgment also illustrates the court's approach to evaluating factual disputes, the weight given to independent corroborative evidence, and the rejection of contributory negligence defences where the defendant failed to meet safety obligations.