Yende v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

On 24 March 2005, the appellant, Mr Lucky Mhlonishwa Yende, was injured at Elsburg railway station. He alleged that while boarding a train that had just arrived at the station, the train jerked and started to move suddenly, causing him to lose balance and fall under the train. As a result, he sustained injuries to the back of his head, shoulder and arm, and his right arm had to be amputated. The platform at the station was curved (concave to the railway line), which meant the train guard could not see the full length of the train when signalling departure. The guard, Ms Juwulwa, testified that she followed standard procedure: after the train stopped, she opened the doors, stepped off the rear of the train and walked to a position where she could observe the full length beyond the curve. She blew her whistle as a warning, returned to the guard's carriage (from where she could no longer see the front of the train due to the curve), closed the doors and signalled for departure. A train control log book showed 45 seconds elapsed between the train's arrival and departure. The trial court rejected the appellant's version as implausible and found he had presented a false corroborating witness (his brother).

• Whether the respondent (PRASA) was negligent in its train departure procedures at a curved platform station
• Whether there was a causal link between any negligence by PRASA and the appellant's injuries
• Whether negligence can be determined in the abstract without proof of how harm was actually caused
• Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving delictual liability
• Whether contributory negligence should be considered (in dissenting judgment)

The appeal was dismissed with costs (majority decision). The dissenting judgment would have upheld the appeal with costs and ordered PRASA to pay 50% of the appellant's proven damages.

Negligence in delictual law cannot be determined in the abstract without reference to the actual circumstances in which harm was caused. Negligence is assessed against foreseeable consequences, and it is only against consequences that are foreseeable that a reasonable person should take precautions. Where a plaintiff's version of how harm occurred is rejected as implausible and there is no other credible explanation based on the evidence for how injuries were sustained, the plaintiff fails to discharge the onus of proving both negligence and causation. Without knowing how harm was caused, it is not possible to establish foreseeable harm which a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have been expected to prevent.

The trial court's finding that PRASA's departure procedure at curved platforms was negligent (requiring a second person to monitor the situation throughout door closure and departure) was made despite the absence of a credible version of how the plaintiff was actually injured. The majority criticized this approach but did not need to decide whether such a procedure would indeed constitute negligence in circumstances where causation was established. The dissenting judgment provides extensive obiter on the flexible application of the 'but-for' test in causation, citing Lee v Minister of Correctional Services and other authorities. Bosielo JA's observations on using common sense and everyday life experience to draw inferences about what probably happened, and his analysis of contributory negligence (50% apportionment), represent alternative approaches to evaluating the evidence that were not adopted by the majority.

This case is significant for clarifying the relationship between negligence and causation in South African delictual law. The majority judgment emphasizes that negligence cannot be determined in the abstract - there must be a proven factual scenario from which foreseeability can be assessed. It reinforces that a plaintiff bears the onus of proving both negligence and causation on a balance of probabilities. The dissenting judgment illustrates the application of the flexible 'but-for' test and the role of common sense in determining causation, particularly in cases where direct evidence is lacking. The case also demonstrates the importance of credibility findings and their impact on the entire case, as well as differences in judicial approach to inference-drawing from circumstantial evidence.