Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Irvine Van Sam Mashongwa

On 1 January 2011, at approximately 11h00, Mr Mashongwa was travelling on a PRASA Metro Rail train from Walker Street to Mamelodi Gardens Station in Pretoria. He was the sole occupant of his coach. The coach doors remained open as the train left Walker Street Station. Shortly after departure, four men entered his coach from an adjacent coach. They demanded and took his cellphone and money, then assaulted him with fists and kicks. They then picked him up and threw him off the moving train through the open doors as it approached Rissik Street Station. He landed on the railway platform where he cried out for help and two security guards came to his assistance. The robbery and assault were common cause. PRASA had employed about 800 security personnel and had security measures in place, particularly during the festive season period when the incident occurred. Mr Mashongwa sued PRASA for damages, and the high court separated the issues of liability and quantum, dealing only with liability.

• Whether PRASA was negligent in failing to provide adequate security guards to ensure passenger safety
• Whether PRASA was negligent in failing to ensure that coach doors were closed whilst the train was in motion
• Whether there was factual causation between the alleged negligent omissions and the harm suffered by the respondent
• What constitutes reasonable security measures for a rail transport provider

The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs.

A transport provider will not be held liable for harm suffered by a passenger as a result of a criminal attack by third parties where: (1) The plaintiff fails to establish factual causation by proving on a balance of probabilities that the alleged negligent omissions were a causa sine qua non of the harm suffered, applying the 'but for' test; (2) The defendant had taken reasonable security measures in the circumstances, even if those measures did not prevent the specific harm; (3) The additional measures alleged to have been necessary would have exceeded what is reasonable to expect of the defendant, such as requiring a security guard in every train coach; and (4) Even if additional measures had been taken, the harm would likely still have occurred due to the nature of the criminal conduct and the ability of perpetrators to overcome such measures. The fact that foreseeable harm eventuated does not in itself mean that the steps taken to avert it were unreasonable. Transport providers do not bear an absolute burden of guaranteeing safety against criminal activity.

The Court expressed doubt that even if a security guard had been present in the specific coach, it would have made any difference given the brazen nature of the attack involving four assailants. The Court noted that the doors were deliberately designed to be opened from the inside in cases of emergency, which was a reasonable safety feature. The Court also observed that no evidence was adduced as to precisely how long it would take to forcibly open coach doors from inside a moving train, nor the travel time between stations, which weakened the respondent's argument that closed doors would have prevented the assault.

This case is significant in South African delict law as it clarifies the extent of the duty of care owed by public transport providers to passengers in relation to criminal attacks by third parties. It confirms that transport providers are not insurers against criminal activity and need not provide absolute guarantees of safety. The case reinforces the application of the factual causation test ('but for' test) in negligence claims, emphasizing that even if harm was foreseeable, the defendant will not be liable if reasonable measures were taken or if additional measures would not have prevented the harm. It provides guidance on what constitutes reasonable security measures in the public transport context, making clear that requiring a security guard in every coach would be unreasonable. The judgment follows and applies the principles established in Shabalala v Metrorail regarding the liability of rail transport providers for crimes committed against passengers.