Authored by Jason Hudson and Jessica Blunden.
In March 2026, the High Court found a bus company liable after a luggage compartment door became detached and struck the claimant on the back of her neck and shoulder area. The company admitted that the door became detached but denied liability, claiming that the claimant had caused the incident herself by grabbing a bar on the inside of the door. The court rejected this defence, finding that the company had failed to present any credible evidence to support it.
The claimant had purchased a ticket to travel from Bloemfontein to Pretoria. While handing her bag to an employee inside the luggage compartment, the compartment door fell from its open position and struck her. She denied grabbing any bar and her version of events was never contradicted by the bus company's witnesses.
The bus company called two witnesses in its defence. The first, its in-house legal counsel, was unfamiliar with the specific luggage compartment and gave evidence that was contradicted by video footage. The second, a mechanic, confirmed that grabbing the bar would not have caused the compartment door to come down, directly undermining the company's own pleaded defence. The court drew a negative inference from the bus company failing to call the employee who was present at the time of the incident.
The court considered the principle that ‘the circumstances speak for themselves’ (res ipsa loquitur), noting that where the only known facts consist of the occurrence itself, the court may draw an inference of negligence against the defendant. In the absence of any evidence from the bus company explaining why the compartment door became detached without fault on their part, the claimant's uncontradicted testimony was sufficient to establish a case of negligence.
The bus company's employees were negligent in failing to ensure the compartment door was properly kept in its open position and in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent it from falling on the claimant. The bus company owed a duty to the public using its service to ensure their safety.
Public carriers owe a duty of care to their passengers. Where a party admits that an incident occurred but fails to provide a credible explanation or call key witnesses to rebut the claimant’s version, a court may draw adverse inferences and will find for the claimant.
Popo v Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd (2567/2024) [2026] ZAFSHC 223 (27 March 2026)