Case study:
X has the right of way and entered and entered an intersection and Y collided with his left hand side. Y drove over a stop street. On the same facts, X collided with the right hand side of Y.
Legal principles:
Y may only pull away if it is safe and he has sufficient visibility of oncoming vehicles. If there is an obstruction (example a parked vehicle), he must move slowly forward to enable him to see pass the obstruction.
Y who approach a three- or four way stop may only pull away if other vehicles that arrived before him at the stop are already through the intersection.
Y who wants to pull away from a stop sign, must look towards the left, right and when seeing X approaching 200m at his right on a high speed and without further considering enters the intersection is negligent. (Caldwell vs Commercial Union 1977 (1) SA 748 (A) and Schroder vs President 1978 (2) SA 600 (A))
X who has the right of way:
- has the right to assume that Y who approach the stop sign will stop; and
- X does not have the absolute right of yield and still has a duty to keep a general lookout. If X notice Y approaching the stop street, if he kept a proper lookout and he notice that Y is approaching the crossing at a very high speed, he must assume that Y will not stop and try to take the necessary avoiding actions. (Guardian vs Saal 1993 (2) SA 161 (CPD))
- If X who has the right of way approach a hidden stop street, he must the moment when the side street is visible look in the side street if there is perhaps not someone who will drove over the stop street. If he notices Y approaching in such a manner that it seems that he will not stop, he must do everything possible to avoid a collision. (Guardian vs Saal)
- X who has the right of way and who must keep a general lookout, has the right to assume in the absence of any indications to the contrary that that Y will stop at a stop sign. Only if it is clear to a reasonable person in X’s position that Y will not stop or will not be able to stop in time, is there a duty on X to try to avoid the accident. Under normal circumstances it is not the duty of X to regulate his driving in such a manner that a driver will not stop at a stop sign. (NEG vs Sullivan 1988 (1) SA 27 (AD))
- X who has the right of way and who notice Y stopping at a stop street, it cannot be expected from him to anticipate that a second vehicle will overtake the still standing vehicle Y and enter the intersection on the wrong side.
Case Law:
NEG VS SULLIVAN 1988 (1) SA 27 (AD)
Facts:
Y has the right of way and is well known with the area. Y is driving on a tar road. Y knows that the intersection in which X is driving and which is a gravel road, is regulated by a stop sign at the intersection. The stop sign however has been removed a while ago. Y is not aware of this. The accident occurred at night. Visibility was limited for both vehicles by a hedge and therefore a blind corner exists. The accident occurred in the intersection.
Held – Court decision:
Y was not in the wrong in the special circumstances in this particular case to act on the basis that traffic in the cross street will give yield to him.
Y did keep a proper lookout and only noticed X when he came from behind the hedge and up to that there is no reason why he should have taken any precautions.
In the absence of any testimony:
How far X and Y were from the intersection when X was visible for Y, or the speed of X’s vehicle and the positions of X and Y when Y became aware that X is not going to stop, it is therefore not possible to assume that Y was negligent and not taking the necessary care and experience as one would expect from a reasonable person.
The driver who has the right of way has the right to assume that in the absence of any reasons to the contrary, that driver in the cross street will adhere to the stop sign. Only when it becomes clear for the reasonable man in the position of the driver who has the right of way that X is not going to stop or will not be able to stop in time, then Y has a duty to try to avoid the collision.
When it became clear to Y that X was not going to stop (there were no clear evidence that he could have realised it earlier) and by making provision for reaction time, the distance between X and Y and their speed, there was nothing that Y could have done to avoid an accident or prevent it.
No negligence could be indicated on the side of Y.
SA EAGLE VS HARFORD 1992 (2) SA 786 (AD)
Facts:
Collision occurred inside a four way stop. A motor vehicle collided with its front against the left hand side of a truck in the middle of an intersection. The truck was already far into the intersection. The motor vehicle has just moved across the stop line when the accident occurred. The motor vehicle did not stop at the stop sign, but moved into the intersection at a high speed.
The truck did stop and noticed the vehicle approaching fast. He however thought that the motor vehicle did see him and will top. The truck then pulled away.
Held – Court decision:
The assumption of the truck driver that the motor vehicle is not going to stop was not unreasonable in the circumstances. A reasonable driver has to make absolutely sure that it is safe to enter an intersection before he does it. The truck driver won the appeal with costs. Absolution of the Instance against the truck driver with costs was ordered.
GUARDIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS SAAL 1993 (2) SA 161 (CPD)
Facts:
X drove over a stop street and collided with Y who has the right of way. X can as a result of his injuries not remember how the accident occurred. On behalf of X it was testified that Y had for 75m from the intersection clear visibility on the intersection.
Held – Court Decision:
X had to prove on a balance of probabilities that Y was negligent and that his negligence has caused the accident or contributed to it. The fact that Y did not keep a proper lookout is not enough to keep him accountable.
X must prove that the neglect has a causal connection to the accident. The question is:
If Y kept a proper lookout and he should have noticed that Y is not going to stop, that he could have at that moment take effective avoiding actions.
X must prove that if Y reacted when the reasonable man would have reacted, the accident would not have occurred.
X did not prove that Y negligence to keep a proper lookout had a causal connection to the cause of the accident.
The appeal of Y succeeded in this matter.
Legal principles of a Traffic Circle:
- Always travel clockwise around a traffic circle,
- X must give right of way to traffic who approach from his right hand side in the traffic circle, except if a police officer give other instructions or if there are traffic signs that show otherwise,
- A yield sign at a traffic circle give instructions to X who approach the yield sign to yield for any traffic that would cross the yield line before him and who would cross his way.
Case Study:
X is driving on the inside of the traffic circle next to the island and decided to leave the traffic circle on his left hand side. Y who is driving on the outside collided with the left side of X when X suddenly changed lanes.
Case Law:
RONDALIA VERS KORP vs Pretorius 1967 (2) SA 649 (A)
Facts:
Four lanes are joining at the traffic circle. There is a traffic island in the middle. Y on a scooter entered the traffic circle and moves around the island to leave the traffic circle in a southerly direction. X drove with his motor vehicle behind Y and caught up on Y. X wanted to leave the traffic circle in an easterly direction. X tried to overtake Y on the right hand side. An accident occurred between the left front of bumper of X and the right side of Y from behind. Y could not remember how the accident occurred.
Held – Court decision:
When vehicles travel in the same direction around a traffic circle, it depends on the circumstances of the driver of the front vehicle to give signal or not. There is no general rule to govern the behavior of the traffic inside the traffic circle.
There are also no reported cases with regards to the different duties of drivers who are driving in the same direction around the traffic circle.
Whether the driver of the front vehicle is under an obligation to give a sign or not depends on the circumstances.
For example, if A wants to drive to his right around the circle, but entering the circle on the left lane, while there are traffic in the right lane, then his duty is the same as a person who wants to enter an intersection in a traffic stream.
In the matter at hand, there is no evidence as to what caused the accident or how it occurred.
Negligence on the side of Y was not proved.
S vs KRUGER 1967 (3) SA 496 (KPA)
In the above case, the principle was imposed that X who was driving in a single lane traffic circle does not have to give a signal if he wants to move right around the circle. This is the normal course of flow in a single traffic circle.
If he wants to turn out of the traffic circle towards his left, which is an unusual procedure, then he should give a signal that he wants to move out of the traffic circle.
There must be a material change of flow from the normal course that X followed before there is any need for X to give a sign.
The Median Strip is also known as a Central Reservation Area or Road Island…. the strip that separates two opposing lanes of traffic. The strip itself varies from road to road. It can be a walkable wide pavement, painted lines, a wider planted area, or a concrete or metal barrier. (see more photo examples at the end of the article).
Legal Principle:
Drivers should expect to find stationary vehicles in their lane of travelling where a Median Strip is found.
Case Law:
GRIFFITHS vs NETHERLANDS INSURANCE 1967 (4) SA 691 (A)
Facts:
X stopped at stop street. X wanted to cross dual carriageway and crossed between opening on an island to turn right. The dual carriageway is a main road in a built-up area and carries heavy traffic. The accident occurred at night, but the road is well lit. X looked towards his left and right and noticed that the road is clear of traffic and pulls away. He realised that vehicles are approaching him from his left hand side at high speed. He realised that he was not going to complete his turn and stopped his vehicle in the island opening. The back of his vehicle blocked the whole lane nearest to the island. He noticed motor vehicles approaching him and noticed that Y is fast approaching him in the lane that is blocked by the back of his vehicle. He however kept concentrating on the traffic that approached him in the direction that he wanted to turn in. He therefore paid attention to the vehicles approaching him from his left. Y then collided with the right back door of his vehicle. Y never saw X. He did not brake or swerve out. Y cannot remember how the accident occurred.
Decision on appeal:
Upheld the Court’s decision that X was not negligent. The minority ruling believed that Y’s appeal must succeed with an apportionment of 75/25 in favor of X.
Minority decision:
There is no rule that forbids X from crossing the first two lanes of a road at a given time and to wait in the opening for an opportunity to join other traffic in the next lane. Because of heavy traffic, it necessitated him to wait for an opportunity. Daylight would not have made a difference. X will still not be negligent. X was visible for Y for at least 60 steps.
The Court decided that drivers at night should expect that sometimes there can be stationary vehicles in their lane of travel. Y would have been able to avoid the collision if he saw X by swerving to the left and passing behind the vehicle. Y was in all probabilities grossly negligent. It was not expected from X to expect the possibility that Y could collide with him.
Case study:
X approached a T-junction. He noticed vehicle Y approaching on his right hand side. X misjudged the speed of Y and turned to his right, right in front of Y and Y collided with X.
Legal principles:
A motorist travelling in the main road has the right of way to keep on course with the expectation that traffic from a side road will not move across his lane of travelling.
A reasonable driver approaching a T-junction will consider it quite possible that a vehicle can drive behind the front oncoming vehicle and be invisible to him.
Case Law:
FORBES-ROSE VS AA ONDERLINGE 1983 (1) 635 (OPA)
Facts:
X approached a T-junction from a secondary road at night. He wanted to turn right in the main road (a gravel road). He pulled away and turned in front of oncoming vehicle. That vehicle however avoided the collision by swerving out. Motorcycle driver Y who drove behind the first vehicle and was invisible due to dust and darkness, collided with X.
Held / Court Decision:
X failed to keep a proper lookout and was/is deemed to be solely negligent.
Case Study:
Y approaches the intersection, the traffic light changes to green in his favor, he enters the intersection; while X drove over the red traffic light and collided against the side of Y.
Legal principles:
Y enters the intersection as the traffic light changes to green must make provision for a possible driver X that is still crossing the intersection and that can cross before Y. After that, Y can however assume or accept that X approaching the red light will not enter the intersection.
Y that enters the intersection just after the traffic light change to green can assume or accept that X that approaching the red light will not enter the intersection before the light change to green. Y must stop at an orange light, but if he is too close to the stop line, he may proceed cautiously through the intersection.
Therefore Y, who has the green light in his favor and has the right of way, however has a duty to keep a lookout for traffic in the intersection as he crosses the intersection. It is expected from Y to be awake and to pay attention to his immediate surroundings.
- If X alleges that the traffic lights were not functioning correctly, he must prove same, for example: other motorist that had the same complaint or other accidents where it was alleged that the robots were not functioning properly. (S vs Lund 1987(4) SA 548 (N))
Case Law:
Netherlands Insurance Company of South Africa Limited vs Brummer 1978 (4) 824 AD)
Facts:
An accident occurred at a robot intersection, which consists of two lanes in each direction. X was travelling from east to west in the left hand traffic lane and Y was travelling from north to south in the inside lane.
Both alleged that the other party was travelling against the red traffic light.
After listening to various testimonies, it was accepted that X entered the intersection against a red traffic light.
Y stated that as he entered the intersection, he did not look towards his left and therefore did not see X before the impact.
Held / Court Ruled Decision:
Y entering the intersection while the traffic light is green for him must look out for traffic that is already in the intersection. Example: traffic that enters the intersection just before the traffic light changed. Y must not ignore vehicles of which he is aware and that are clearly driven on a negligent basis. It is expected from Y to be on the lookout for traffic that is entering the intersection against a red light from left or right.
In the matter of SA Eagle vs Harford 1992 (2) 786 (A) this principle was confirmed: that it could not be expected from a reasonable driver to be absolutely sure that it is safe to enter an intersection before he enters it.
In the matter at hand, there was no trustworthy evidence as to where Y’s vehicle was when the light changed to green for him. There were no grounds where it could be found that Y, at that stage, was on or just over the stop line of the intersection.
It was thus proved that Y was negligent.
The appeal succeeded, and absolution of the instance with costs was ordered.
Case Law:
AA vs Mantji 1980 (1) SA 655 (A)
Facts:
X was driving his motorcycle and drove over a red traffic light and collided with Y, which was driving over a green traffic light.
When Y was approximately 35 to 40 paces from the white line at the intersection, the light turned green for him. As he crossed the white line, he noticed X on his right hand side driving over the red light. Moments thereafter the front of his bakkie collided with the back half of the motorcycle of X on the left hand side.
Held – Court Decision:
On the balance of probabilities, it could not be determined, which of the two vehicles entered the intersection first.
If one accepts that X was first in the intersection, it is still not proven that Y was negligent and if he was negligent, that his negligence contributed towards the collision.
The appeal was successful and the Court ordered absolution of the instance with costs.
Case Study:
Facts:
Y approached the intersection with the traffic lights flashing orange in the direction that he was travelling and X approached the intersection from another direction with red lights flashing. The accident occurred at night time.
The left half of the front bumper of Y collided with the left hand side of X. Just as Y wanted to enter the intersection, he saw X ± 15m on his right hand side. X was also on the point of entering the intersection.
Y could not see X earlier because of the fact that X just came from out of a dip in the road. They therefore entered the intersection at the same time.
X did not stop and entered the intersection at a high speed. Y braked very hard, but could not swerve out because the road surface was wet at the time. This would in any case not have prevented the accident.
The point of impact was 5m in the intersection from Y direction and 15m in the intersection from X direction.
Case Law:State vs Smuts 1984 (4) SA 416 (TPD)
Held / Court Ruled Decision:
Such situation cannot be compared to that of a situation at a four way stop.
Y who approached the flashing orange lights (today all lights will flash red), and all lights today are equal to a yield sign which one must yield to all traffic that is in the intersection.
Must approach the intersection at such a speed that would enable him to yield to above traffic. Y can assume that any visible traffic that approached the intersection should stop.
Y does not have to decrease his speed to such an extent that if a vehicle in the crossing should drove over the stop line that he would be in a position to avoid the accident.
Y must do everything reasonable to try to avoid an accident with any vehicle that he could see will ignore the stop sign.
Y, which is approaching the flashing red light (the same as a stop street), is obligated to stop in all circumstances and is not allowed to proceed before it is safe to do so.
It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Y, which approached the flashing orange light, did not do it with the necessary care or did not keep a proper lookout.
The State failed to prove any negligence on the side of Y.
Today when a traffic intersection is malfunctioning, all lights will flash red and motorists should treat it as a four way stop.
AA vs Mantji 1980 (1) SA 655 (A)
Facts:
X was driving his motorcycle and drove over a red traffic light and then collided with bakkie Y, which was driving over a green traffic light.
When Y was approximately 35 to 40 paces from the white line at the intersection, the light turned green for him. As he crossed the white line, he noticed X on his right hand side driving over the red light. Moments thereafter the front of his bakkie collided with the back half of the motorcycle of X on the left hand side.
Held – Court Decision:
On the balance of probabilities, it could not be determined, which of the two vehicles entered the intersection first.
If one accepts that X was first in the intersection, it is still not proven that Y was negligent and if he was negligent, that his negligence contributed towards the collision.
The appeal was successful and the Court ordered absolution of the instance with costs.
State vs Smuts 1984 (4) SA 416 (TPD)
Facts:
Y approached the intersection with the traffic lights flashing orange in the direction that he was travelling and X approached the intersection from another direction with red lights flashing. The accident occurred at night time.
The left half of the front bumper of Y collided with the left hand side of X. Just as Y wanted to enter the intersection, he saw X ±15m on his right hand side. X was also on the point of entering the intersection.
Y could not see X earlier because of the fact that X just came from out of a dip in the road. They therefore entered the intersection at the same time.
X did not stop and entered the intersection at a high speed. Y braked very hard, but could not swerve out because the road surface was wet at the time. This would in any case not have prevented the accident.
The point of impact was 5m in the intersection from Y direction and 15m in the intersection from X direction.
Held – Court decision:
Such situation cannot be compared to that of a situation at a four way stop.
Y who approached the flashing orange lights (these days all lights will flash red), and all lights today are equal to a yield sign which one must yield to all traffic that is in the intersection.
Y must approach the intersection at such a speed that would enable him to yield to above traffic. Y can assume that any visible traffic that approached the intersection should stop.
Y does not have to decrease his speed to such an extent that if a vehicle in the crossing should drove over the stop line that he would be in a position to avoid the accident.
Y must do everything reasonable to try to avoid an accident with any vehicle that he could see will ignore the stop sign.
Y, which is approaching the flashing red light (the same as a stop street), is obligated to stop in all circumstances and is not allowed to proceed before it is safe to do so.
It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Y, which approached the flashing orange light, did not do it with the necessary care or did not keep a proper lookout.
The State failed to prove any negligence on the side of Y.
It must be noted that these days, when a traffic intersection is malfunctioning, all lights will flash red and motorists should treat it as a four way stop.
Case study:
Y approach the intersection and the robot change to green in his favor. He enters the intersection and collided with X who drove over a red light.
Legal Principals:
- Y who enters the intersection just after the robots change to green must foresee that a driver X can still travel through the intersection and cross before Y. Y can assume that X who approach the red light will not enter the intersection.
- Y who entered the intersection just after the lights changed to amber can expect Y not to enter the intersection before the lights changed to green. Y must stop at the amber light, if he is however to close to the stopline he may proceed with caution.
- Y who approach a green light in his favor has a right of way but there is still a duty on him to be on the lookout for traffic in the intersection as he proceed through the intersection.
- If X alleged that the robots are not functioning properly he must bring evidence to that affect. See S vs Lund 1987 (4) SA 548 (N).
Case Law:
- Netherlands Ins Co of SA Ltd vs Brummer 1978 (4) 824 (AD).
- AA vs Mantje 1980 (1) SA 655 (A).
- S vs Smuts 1984 (4) SA 416 (T).
- National Employers General Insurance Co Ltd v Jagers 1984 (4) SA 437 (E).
- Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Gouws 1985 (2) 629 (AD)
- Izaaks v Schneider 1991 (3) SA 675 (Nm).
Netherlands Ins Co of SA vs Brummer