A judgment was delivered by the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division seated at Cape Town unpacking a claim where the driver of the motor vehicle collided with a boundary wall on the opposite side of the road. The driver claimed to have been blinded by bright headlights from oncoming traffic.
BACKGROUND
Nicolene van Rhyn (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) collided with a boundary wall on the night of the 27th of January 2018 due to the bright headlights of another vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the insured driver”). The collision resulted in the Plaintiff sustaining severe bodily injuries. She instituted a claim against the Road Accident Fund (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) for damages on the basis that the collision was caused by sole negligence of the insured driver.
THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED
The legal issue that needed to be determined was whether there was a causal link between the blinding lights of the insured vehicle and the Plaintiff colliding into the boundary wall thereafter. In the event where the headlights were dimmed would the accident still have occurred and was the headlights the sole cause for a collision occurring?
JUDGEMENT BY THE HIGH COURT
In the case Van Rhyn v Road Accident Fund (Case no 15266/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC, Honourable Judge Nuku delivered a judgement on the 24th of October 2025 in regard to the delictual claim.
Judge Nuku outlined the proverbial grounds of negligence relied on by the Plaintiff in her Particulars of Claim that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of the insured driver. It was noted that the Plaintiff pleaded, inter alia, that the insured driver drove with its head lights on bright, which blinded her.
Judge Nuku expressed that the Plaintiff’s evidence was short and brief. The evidence provided by her was that she was driving at night on her way home from work, the road was dark as there were no streetlights.
As she came around a bend in the road, she noticed the insured vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, with its headlights on bright and very close to her car.
She flicked her vehicle’s lights to signal the insured driver to dim his, but there was no response. The bright lights of the insured vehicle shocked and confused her.
She could not remember anything after the insured vehicle passed her, as everything went blank and she could not see. She lost control of her vehicle, which veered off to the opposite side of the road and collided with a boundary
wall.
She further testified that everything happened within seconds, leaving her no time to apply the brakes of her vehicle.
The only witness, a Mr De Villiers did not see how the collision occurred but saw the insured vehicle driving in the opposite direction of the Plaintiff, with extreme bright lights. A few moments after the insured vehicle had passed him, he heard a bang, when he turned around, he saw that the Plaintiff’s vehicle had collided with a boundary wall. The Judge stated that this evidence was not helpful as he did not see how the collision occurred.
Of critical importance, Judge Nuku in dismissing the claim stated that the evidence by the Plaintiff does not clarify how her vehicle left the road and collided with the boundary wall. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the boundary wall occurred after the insured vehicle had passed her vehicle and the Plaintiff was unable to explain why she continued driving after the brief effect of the blinding lights. In essence, Judge Nuku accepted that it was negligent of the insured driver to keep his lights on bright in the face of oncoming vehicles, this fails to explain her colliding into the boundary wall that is far removed from the road. The differentiating factor with cases cited by the Plaintiff is that these were collisions which occurred with objects in the immediate vicinity of the road.
In addition, by her own evidence, the collision occurred near her home, and it is reasonable to assume that she is familiar with the area. She testified that it was shock and confusion that directly caused her to drive off the road which Judge Nuku found to be inconsistent with typical human behaviour. He found her evidence to have significant gaps adding that her failure to explain how her motor vehicle collided with the wall was fatal to her case.
A CLAIM THAT SUCCEEDED:
In Posthumus N.O. and Another v Road Accident Fund (20024/2014) [2015] ZASCA 40 (25 March 2015), Mr and Mrs Posthumus were involved in a motor vehicle collision as passengers. The driver, Mr Maritz, was blinded by a stationary vehicle’s bright headlights who then lost control over the vehicle and overturned. The passengers sustained severe bodily injuries. The reasonable steps are for the stationery vehicle driver to have dimmed the lights or have left the hazards on as a warning but failed to do either, finding him to be causally negligent. Bright headlights cause visual discomfort and temporary blindness.
Section 20(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 provides for damages suffered by a person who has placed or left a motor vehicle at any place shall be deemed to be driving that motor vehicle whilst it is stationed. Failure to dim lights of a motor vehicle is connected to the use of a motor vehicle. The appeal in the above-mentioned case succeeded with costs.
A CLAIM THAT DID NOT SUCCEED:
In Mokhudu v The Road Accident Fund (70443/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1034 (18 September 2015), the Plaintiff failed to inform the police officer who took the statement and drew the sketch plan that his vision of the road was affected by an oncoming vehicle’s lights which was not dimmed. This crucial piece of information was only later provided by the sole witness who is the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff had many opportunities to state that a vehicle failed to dim its lights which affected his vision and resulted him to overturn, but he failed to provide this information timeously. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Of importance, this case highlights that a Court is not required to speculate as to what had could have caused a Plaintiff’s vehicle to drive over the road and collide with a stationary boundary wall; the Plaintiff must explain this in the absence of which a claim will not succeed.
REFERENCES
1. Van Rhyn v Road Accident Fund (Case no 15266/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC (24 October 2025)
2. Posthumus N.O. and Another v Road Accident Fund (20024/2014) [2015] ZASCA 40 (25 March 2015)
3. Mokhudu v The Road Accident Fund (70443/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1034 (18 September 2015)
4. Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
Written by Ms Chalonette Woolls, Candidate Attorney, under the supervision of Ms Dikeledi Mhlanga, Attorney – Mphela & Associates, Groblersdal