Roman's Transport CC v Sisa Zihlwele

The respondents (plaintiffs) were passengers on a bus owned by the appellant (defendant) and driven by its employee, Mr Nyingwa. While travelling at approximately 95 kilometres per hour on a straight road between Beaufort West and Aberdeen, the right front tyre of the bus suddenly burst. Following the blowout, the bus veered to the right, the steering wheel rotated violently in both directions causing the bus to bounce up and down, making it difficult to control. According to the driver, the bus was 'jiving and dancing all over the road'. The bus left the tarred surface, collided with a rock-cutting on the right side of the road, capsized and landed in a ditch. The distance between the start of the tyre mark and the point of impact was 132.2 metres. The driver testified that he did not apply the brakes until the very last moment before the collision as he was trying to bring the bus under directional control first, fearing that immediate braking would cause immediate loss of control. The respondents sued for damages for personal injuries sustained in the collision, alleging negligence on the part of the driver for failing to apply brakes timeously, adequately or at all.

• Whether the bus driver was negligent in failing to apply brakes immediately after the tyre blowout
• Whether the sudden emergency doctrine applied to absolve the driver from liability
• The proper approach to evaluating conflicting expert evidence
• The standard of care required of a driver faced with a sudden emergency not of his own making
• Whether the driver's decision not to apply brakes immediately was reasonable in the circumstances

The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the court below was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with costs.

Where a driver of a vehicle is suddenly confronted with a situation of imminent danger not of his own making and reacts to it, he cannot be found negligent unless it can be shown that no reasonable man would have so acted. A driver is required to take such steps as a reasonable man exercising reasonable care and skill would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances of a sudden emergency. The court should not adopt a hypercritical attitude of an armchair critic or examine meticulously the driver's reactions in the placid atmosphere of the court in light of after-acquired knowledge. Expert opinion evidence will only be of assistance to the court when based on established facts and when the expert possesses the requisite specialized knowledge in the relevant field. The fact that an accident occurred despite the driver's efforts does not render unreasonable the steps he took to avert it.

The Court cited with approval the statement from Ntsala and others v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (2) SA 184 (T) at 192F-H regarding the sudden emergency doctrine and the inappropriateness of meticulously examining a driver's split-second decisions with the benefit of hindsight. The Court also noted that the trial was conducted on the basis that the driver had been faced by a sudden emergency resulting from the right front tyre deflation, which framework was accepted by both parties. The Court observed that the issue of inadequate training of the driver was not pleaded or raised during trial and therefore could not be considered on appeal, as it was not a case the appellant was called upon to meet.

This case is significant in South African delictual law for clarifying the application of the sudden emergency doctrine in motor vehicle accident cases. It reinforces the principle that a driver confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own making should not be judged by the standard of hindsight or meticulous examination in the calm atmosphere of a courtroom. The case also provides important guidance on the evaluation of expert evidence, particularly where experts give conflicting opinions, emphasizing that expert opinions must be based on proper factual foundations and that courts should assess the cogency of the underlying reasoning. It establishes that the mere fact that an accident occurred does not mean the driver was negligent if he took reasonable steps to avert it in the split-second available to him.