Halfon v Kempster Sedgwick (Pty) Ltd and Another

On 16 November 2016 at approximately 9:15 a.m., a two-car collision occurred at the intersection of Hertzog Boulevard and Christiaan Barnard Boulevard in Cape Town CBD, a busy robot-controlled intersection. A Volvo XC90 driven by Mr Bergma (employee of the first defendant, Kempster Sedgwick (Pty) Ltd) entered the intersection on a green right-turn arrow and became trapped mid-intersection when the arrow turned yellow then off. As it completed its right turn, it was struck on the left side by a Mercedes Benz driven by the second defendant, Mr Davidson, who entered the intersection on a green light traveling straight in a northbound direction. The Volvo was forced into a traffic light pole on an island. The plaintiff, Mr Ian Mark Halfon, sued both defendants for damages to the Volvo, which was being delivered to him at the time under a tripartite delivery arrangement. The second defendant was late for work, aggressively accelerated into the intersection, and did not see the Volvo until after impact. Both drivers were familiar with the intersection which was known to be hazardous and allowed insufficient time for vehicles to clear.

• Whether the second defendant (Mercedes driver) was negligent in causing the collision
• Whether the first defendant's employee (Volvo driver) was contributorily negligent
• Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to claim damages for the Volvo
• What the appropriate allocation of liability and costs was between the defendants

1. The second defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages. 2. The claim against the first defendant is dismissed. 3. The second defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff and the first defendant on scale C, including the costs of the expert witness Mr Proctor-Parker.

A driver who enters a robot-controlled intersection on a green light has a duty to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully trapped in the intersection and must yield right of way to them. A driver fails to exercise reasonable care when they speed into a busy, known hazardous intersection above the speed limit, ignore stationary vehicles that have not proceeded on green, and collide with a vehicle lawfully completing its turn that is ensnared in the intersection. The trapped vehicle does not act negligently by continuing to clear the intersection, particularly where oncoming traffic has yielded and a sudden emergency is created by the negligent driver.

The court noted that at intersections regulated by traffic lights, drivers entering on a favourable signal may not rely entirely thereon but must anticipate, yield, and allow right of way to vehicles trapped in the intersection (citing South British Insurance Co. Ltd v Barrable 1952 (3) SA 239 N at 243B). A green traffic light does not grant a motorist carte blanche to ignore other rules of the road.

This judgment reinforces the duties of drivers at large, hazardous robot-controlled intersections: a green light is not an absolute right of way. It applies the principles from South British Insurance Co. Ltd v Barrable, confirming that drivers must yield to vehicles legitimately trapped mid-intersection. The case also illustrates the court's approach to evaluating expert accident reconstruction evidence, the rejection of a party's version when contradicted by objective evidence and credible eyewitnesses, and the court's discretion to order an unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of a co-defendant where the plaintiff reasonably joined both parties and the unsuccessful defendant's defense forced litigation.