The North West province’s executive council for public works, roads and transport has been found guilty of failing to properly maintain the R512 near Broederstroom and is now liable for the damages sustained by a motorbiker who was in an accident caused by poor road surface conditions.
The high court in Mahikeng this week found in favour of Ryan Brews, who was seriously injured in a motorbike accident eight years ago. North West public works department has been instructed to pay Brews’s legal costs, plus the costs of the expert he consulted, with the actual damages he suffered to be calculated as a separate case.
Brews was 43 at the time, and though he was an experienced rider, it was the first time he was driving on that stretch of road when the accident happened on July 19 2015.
According to Brews, it was a clear day, the sun was shining and the road was dry. Shortly after 11am, while manoeuvring around a curve to the right in the road, he lost control of the bike.
“The plaintiff did not try to embellish his evidence and where he could not recall aspects of what transpired he was very clear in that regard. In particular, the plaintiff readily conceded that he could not remember whether there was a road sign indicating the speed limit, but he accepted that the general speed limit would in all probability have been 80km/h,” the court said.
“The plaintiff does recall if the road was in a good condition as he approached the curve. He saw a hazard sign before the point where the accident occurred indicating undulations. While he remains adamant that he never saw a sign indicating a recommended speed of 40km/h, he does not dispute the presence of such a sign,” the court noted.
Brews told the court he lost control of the bike, saw the sign warning of undulations and felt his bike start to shake, and the handle bars moved from side to side before crashing into a ditch.
“He regained consciousness while lying in the ditch in the presence of an elderly man who was trying to speak to him. That is the gist of the evidence of the plaintiff,” the court said.
There is nothing to demonstrate the plaintiff rode his motorcycle at an excessive speed which could constitute speeding. The department failed to take reasonable steps to warn Brews or other users of such potential hazards or, if such steps were taken, that they did not meet the necessary industry standards.
— Mahikeng high court
The man was identified as Mr Bezuidenhout. His wife, Mrs Bezuidenhout, was his passenger, and testified as a witness to the accident. She described seeing a motorcyclist heading towards them as they entered the curve from the opposite direction.
She saw his bike start to shake and then jump to the extent that the rider lost control and left the road. They waited with Brews until an ambulance arrived.
During the trial Brews and public works did not call on experts to testify, but rather submitted reports drawn up by experts contracted to do site inspections after the crash.
North West public works conceded it “has a duty of care, inherent in its responsibility, to maintain the R512 road near the town of Broederstroom” and was duty bound to “perform regular and appropriate maintenance on the road to ensure that the driving surface of the road and the pavement adjoining the road were safe for the use of the public”.
This duty entailed taking steps to ensure that rutting, undulations, cracks and bumps do not develop on the driving surface of the road. Budgetary constraints were never raised as an issue.
Brews’s expert found that the condition of the road at the time of the accident was dangerous to the reasonable user, while the department claimed his loss of control was “a result of his sole negligence, in failing to drive his motorcycle within the speed limit required by road signs and by failing to take into consideration the road signs erected by the defendant on the side of the road”.
Expert witnesses Dr Louis Roodt, a civil engineer specialising in road design, and safety civil engineer Willie Renier du Preez were engaged.
“The evidence extracted from reports of the two experts is as follows: at the time of the accident in question, a temporary warning sign of an uneven road was erected 100m before the area where the accident occurred,” the court said.
Roodt visited the scene in October 2015, and Du Preez did his inspection almost four years later in October 2019.
“The experts, however, reached an agreement that the road was virtually or practically in the same condition as it was at the time of the alleged accident on July 19 2015.”
Both found that the specific section of the road was in poor structural condition and beyond the stage where routine maintenance alone can render the driving surface safe and in a functional condition. Both experts relied on a plethora of photographs confirming the rut formation, the undulations, the ridges and the bumps in the road surface.
Both experts agreed that for a warning sign to serve its purpose, it needed to be visible at least 160m ahead of a hazard in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h. The warning sign erected in this case did not comply with the prescribed distance as it was placed only 80m from where the road railed.
“I am satisfied that there is nothing to demonstrate the plaintiff rode his motorcycle at an excessive speed which could constitute speeding,” the court said, adding the department had failed to take reasonable steps to warn Brews or other users of such potential hazards “or, if such steps were taken, that they did not meet the necessary industry standards”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.