THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
| ROAD ACCIDENT FUND v ERIKA VAN DEN BERG | |
|
|
|
| Supreme Court of Appeal -19/05 | Hearing date: 3 November 2005 |
| Judgment date: 16 November 2005 | |
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 - meaning of 'motor vehicle' − 'designed ... for propulsion ... on a road' to be determined objectively − general use being made of vehicle a relevant consideration − Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller found to be a motor vehicle as defined |
|
Media Summary of Judgment |
|
From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Date: 16 November 2005
Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. * * * The Supreme Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal against a judgment in the High Court, Johannesburg in which it was held that a Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller (a PTR) qualified as a motor vehicle as defined in the Road Accident Fund Act 576 of 1996. The respondent instituted action in the High Court, Johannesburg against the Road Accident Fund for the payment of damages suffered by her and her two minor sons when her husband and the father or her minor children died as a result of injuries suffered by him when he was involved in a collision with the PTR. The Road Accident Fund defended the case, inter alia, on the basis that the PTR did not qualify as a motor vehicle in terms of the Act. If that was the case the Fund could not be held liable. The SCA upheld the judgment of the High Court to the effect that the PTR did qualify as a motor vehicle as defined.
|
|