This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.

In August 2025, the High Court dismissed a road accident claim against the Road Accident Fund, finding the claimant entirely responsible for a collision on the N12 Highway. The judgment reinforces the principle that drivers must maintain a safe following distance.

The issue revolved around whether the claimant had maintained a safe following distance behind the defendant’s insured vehicle, a Land Cruiser, which was preparing to turn right. The claimant alleged that he was driving at the speed limit and keeping a safe distance when the Land Cruiser braked suddenly and turned without warning, forcing him to swerve and collide with the rear of the Land Cruiser. He insisted that there was no indication of the turn and that he had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the crash.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant, the Road Accident Fund, should be held liable for a collision on the N12 Highway, or whether the claimant was solely responsible due to his own driving conduct. The court held that the claimant was entirely to blame for the accident and dismissed his claim with costs.

In contrast, the defendant’s witnesses, including the driver and a passenger of the Land Cruiser, gave clear evidence that the indicator was activated well in advance and that the vehicle had slowed down appropriately before the turn. They observed the claimant approaching at high speed, overtaking on the incorrect side of the road, and failing to keep a prudent distance. Their account was supported by the physical evidence at the site.

The court placed significant emphasis on the legal duty of a following driver to keep a distance that allows for safe stopping in the event of sudden changes by the vehicle ahead. The evidence demonstrated that the claimant had ample opportunity to stop safely if he had been observing a reasonable following distance, especially given the good road and weather conditions. The claimant’s failure to call any of his passengers or colleagues to support his version further weakened his case.

The court found that the claimant had not kept a safe following distance and was driving at an excessive speed, which directly caused the collision. The defendant’s version was accepted as credible and consistent, leading to the conclusion that the claimant was 100% negligent.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZANCHC/2025/75.html