THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case No: 39/2014
NOT REPORTABLE

In the matter between:

YENDE: MHLONISHWA LUCKY                                                   APPELLANT

and

PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA                  RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Yende v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (39/2014
[2015] ZASCA 49 (27 March 2015)
Coram:
Cachalia, Bosielo, Zondi JJA, Van der Merwe and Mayat
AJJA
Heard:
11 March 2015
Delivered:
27 March 2015
Summary:
Delict – Negligence – appellant allegedly falling off train
departing from station – whether negligence on the part of
respondent proved.

ORDER

On appeal from Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg (Sutherland J sitting
as court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Cachalia JA and Mayat AJA (Zondi JA and Van der Merwe AJA
concurring)

[1] The primary issue in the present appeal, brought with the leave of the
court a quo (Sutherland J) is whether or not the appellant (the plaintiff in the
court a quo), Mr Lucky Mhlonishwa Yende, discharged the onus of proving
before the trial court that the respondent (PRASA) was delictually liable for the
bodily injuries sustained by Mr Yende at the Elsburg railway station (the
station) on 24 March 2005. The court a quo found that PRASA was negligent
because the procedure followed by the guard relating to a train departing from
the station was unsafe, but that such negligence was not causally connected
to Mr Yende‟s injuries. Mr Yende appeals against the order dismissing his
claim with leave of the trial court.

[2] Mr Yende‟s pleaded case was that he was injured as a result of
PRASA‟s negligence in one or more of several respects. Specifically, he
averred that a train he was boarding at the station had jerked and started to
move, causing him to lose balance and to fall under the train. He alleged that
PRASA had been negligent in failing to take adequate precautions at the time
to prevent passengers from being injured by a moving train, when by the

exercise of reasonable care it could and should have done so. However, he
pleaded no facts as to what precautionary steps PRASA ought to have taken.

[3] Mr Yende was the sole witness who testified on how he had been
injured. He stated that he had been waiting for a train, and standing about a
meter from the edge of the platform, when a train arrived and stopped at the
station.  His brother, who was in front of him, immediately boarded the train.
He followed at the same time, but as he stepped onto one of the carriages,
the train jerked and began moving out of the station. The sudden and
unexpected movement caused him to lose his balance. He fell backwards
onto the platform and does not know how he ended up on the railway tracks.
As a result of his fall he sustained injuries to the back of his head, to his
shoulder and to his arm. Sadly, his right arm had to be amputated.

[4] The platform where the appellant boarded is curved, concave to the
railway line, a fact that was central to the trial court‟s finding that the guard
adopted a negligent procedure when signalling for the train‟s departure from
the station. The guard, Ms Juwulwa, testified that after the train had stopped
at the station, she caused the doors of the carriages to be opened by pressing
a button meant for this purpose. She stepped off the rear end of the train onto
the platform and walked a few meters away from the train from where she
was able to observe the full length of the train beyond the curve of the
platform. From this vantage point she was able to detect whether commuters
had stopped embarking or disembarking. Once she was satisfied that there
were no more commuters going on board or coming down from a bridge on
the platform, she blew her whistle as a warning to any commuters, and then
made her way back to the guard‟s carriage. From there she was not able to
see the front part of the train because it was obscured by the curve in the
platform. She closed the doors of the train and signalled for its departure. The
driver then set the train in motion.

[5] The fundamental dispute between the versions of the two parties was that
on Mr Yende‟s version the train began departing from the station prematurely
(almost immediately after it arrived at the station), barely allowing any time for

the commuters to board.  The testimony of PRASA‟s employees was that a
full 45 seconds elapsed between the train‟s arrival and the point at which it
began departing from the station.  This was confirmed by a train control
official, Mr Underhay, who had completed a log book on 24 March 2005
recording arrival and departure times of trains at the station. On this crucial
issue, characterized by the trial court as „the question of timing‟, the court
accepted PRASA‟s version and rejected Mr Yende‟s testimony as implausible.
It found that Mr Yende sought to bolster his version by introducing a false
corroborating witness – his brother – to confirm that he was with him when
they attempted to board the train. The consequence of this finding was that
there was simply no explanation before the court as to what happened.

[6] Counsel for Mr Yende was constrained to concede that the court was
correct in its finding that the train must have stopped for at least 45 seconds,
before departing from the station. Despite this he sought to persuade us that
Mr Yende could only have been injured because the doors probably remained
open when the train departed, causing him to fall out. He asked us to take
judicial notice of the fact that people do get injured on trains in this manner,
and that therefore Mr Yende‟s injuries were probably sustained because of
PRASA‟s fault.

[8] The submission in this regard is utterly without merit, for it amounts to a
plea that the court can impose a form of strict liability on PRASA that jettisons
the fault requirement, which lies at the heart of delictual liability. Once the
court rejected Mr Yende‟s version, there was no other explanation based on
the evidence for what happened to him or how he sustained his injuries. That
ought to have been the end of the matter.

[9] Nevertheless, the court embarked on an enquiry as to whether PRASA‟s
procedure relating to the way it deals with the situation on a curved platform at
the station was reasonable. The court said that when the guard returns to the
coach to signal, a large part of the train is unsighted and when the doors are
closed the guard relies on assumptions. These assumptions are that the
hydraulic system is working, that all the doors have been closed and that no

one has arrived at the last second to get onto the train. The way to ensure
that problems do not arise, the court said, was to have a second person at the
curved platform standing where the guard would have been standing with her
whistle, in order to signal that all is safe, the doors can be closed and the train
may depart. The employment of a second person to perform this task at the
station, said the court, would „enable (PRASA) to deal with the habitual
problem of commuters on trains behaving irresponsibly and trying to hop on at
the last moment.‟ The trial court thus concluded that PRASA was negligent in
the way it dealt with this situation on the curved platform at the station.

[10] However, after finding that PRASA was negligent relating to the
procedure the guard followed at the curved platform, the learned judge
concluded that in the absence of a plausible account of how Mr Yende came
to fall under the train, it was not possible to conclude that this negligence was
causally connected to his injuries. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned
judge was no doubt correct, but this begs the question as to how PRASA
could have been found to be negligent at all when the appellant had not
presented a plausible account before the court.

[11] It seems that the court a quo arrived at this conclusion by considering
PRASA‟s conduct in the abstract because there was no plausible version for
how the harm was actually caused. But negligence in our law cannot be
determined
in
the
abstract,
without
reference
to
the
foreseeable
consequences it produces, for it is only consequences that are foreseeable
against which the reasonable person should take precautions. In the instant
matter, we do not know how the harm was caused. It was therefore not
possible to find foreseeable harm, which a reasonable person in the position
of PRASA would have been expected to take steps to prevent. 1  In the
circumstances, Mr Yende did not discharge the onus of proving negligence
either.

1 See generally Boberg PQR The Law of Delict (1991) 274-279.

[12] For all these reasons, the trial court was correct to dismiss Mr Yende‟s
claim and the appeal must fail. The following order is accordingly made:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Bosielo JA:
[13] I have had the benefit of reading the judgment by my Colleagues,
Cachalia JA and Mayat AJA. I regret the fact that I do not agree with both their
reasoning and finding. These are my reasons for parting ways with them.

[14] As my two colleagues have dealt with the factual matrix of the case
quite extensively, I will avoid rehashing the same facts except where it is
necessary to shed more light on my reasoning.

[15] Essentially my colleagues find that as the court below had found the
appellant (Mr Yende) not to be a credible witness and rejected his entire
evidence, this automatically meant that there was no version to consider.
They hold further that as Mr Yende bore the onus of proof, the court below
should have found that he had failed to make a case against the respondent
(PRASA) on negligence. As a result, my colleagues hold that this should have
been the end of the matter. I do not agree.

[16] I disagree with my colleagues on their finding that the court below erred
in finding negligence on the part of PRASA. The following background facts
are necessary to explain my dissent.  The issue on appeal was the finding by
the court below that there was no causal link between alleged negligence on
the part of PRASA and the injuries sustained by the appellant.

[17] My colleagues criticise the reasoning and finding by the court below on
negligence. Essentially they hold at para 1 (supra) that, having found the
appellant not to be a credible witness thus rejecting his version, the court
below should have found that Mr Yende had failed in discharging the onus of
proving that PRASA was delictually liable for the bodily injuries he sustained

at the Elsburg railway station on 24 March 2005. This is how they express
themselves at para 8 above:
„Once the court rejected the appellant‟s version, there was no other explanation
based on the evidence for what happened to Mr Yende or how he sustained his
injuries. That ought to have been the end of the matter.‟

[18] However, that did not happen because PRASA, testified through the
train guard Ms Juwula (Juwulwa), the protection officer, Mr Molefe (Molefe)
and Mr Underhay (Underhay), the train control officer. Based on PRASA‟s
version, the court below found that Juwulwa did not act like a reasonable train
guard on the ill-fated day. It found her conduct to constitute negligence.

[19] This is how the court below expressed itself in finding PRASA
negligent:
„It seems to me self- evident that the particular procedure followed by her, which I
accept is the prescribed procedure, has some serious flaws. This particular train did
not have a conductor and by way of contrast there was therefore no one who could
have signalled from, say, the middle of the train that there was no one arriving or
getting onto the train. Thus when she moved from the spot where she blows her
whistle, the doors are still open and she has to rely on her assumption about the
reliability of the hydraulic system to close all the doors before the train leaves the
station. All this is done unsighted. Obviously, the way to make sure this is not done
unsighted is to have a second person at a curved platform station standing where
she would have been standing with her whistle, in order to signal to her that all
remains safe throughout the door closing and departure process. The importance of
this is self- evident. In my view such a procedure would enable the defendant to be a
position to deal with what is a habitual problem of commuters on trains behaving
irresponsibly and trying to hop on at the last moment. A somewhat spirited debate
arose about whether or not this particular procedure was itself of such a nature that
the defendant could be accused of negligence. In my view the answer to that
question can be unequivocally answered that the defendant is indeed negligent in the
way it proceeds to deal with this situation on a curved station.‟

[20] Notwithstanding having found PRASA to have been negligent, the
court below dismissed Mr Yende‟s claim on the basis that there was no causal

nexus between PRASA‟s negligent behaviour and the damages sustained by
Yende. My colleagues agree with the court below that causation was not
proved. They find that it was not possible for it to find a reasonable harm,
which a reasonable person in PRASA‟s position would have been expected to
take steps to guard against. I do not agree.

[21] Grappling with the intractable question of causation the Constitutional
Court seized the opportunity in Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013
(2) SA 144 (CC) paras 40-41 and enunciated the correct legal approach to
causation as follows:
„Although different theories have developed on causation, the one frequently
employed by courts in determining factual causation is the conditio sine qua non
theory or but-for test. This test is not without problems, especially when determining
whether a specific omission caused a certain consequence. According to this test the
enquiry to determine causal link, put in its simplest formulation, is whether „one fact
follows from another‟. The test –
“may involve the metal elimination of the wrongful conduct and the substitution of a
hypothetical course of lawful conduct and the posing of the question as to whether
upon such an hypothesis plaintiff‟s loss would have ensued or not. If it would in any
event have ensued, then the wrongful conduct was not a cause of the plaintiff‟s loss;
[otherwise] it would not so have ensued. If the wrongful act is shown in this way not
to be a causa sine qua non of the loss suffered, then no legal liability can arise.”

In the case of “positive” conduct or commission on the part of the defendant, the
conduct is mentally removed to determine whether the relevant consequence would
still have resulted. However, in the case of an omission the but-for test requires that
a hypothetical positive act be inserted in the particular set of facts, the so-called
mental removal of the defendant‟s omission. This means that reasonable conduct of
the defendant would be inserted into the set of facts. However, as will be shown in
detail later, the rule regarding the application of the test in positive acts and omission
cases is not inflexible. There are cases in which the strict application of the rule
would result in an injustice, hence a requirement for flexibility. The other reason is
because it is not always easy to draw the line between a positive act and an
omission. Indeed there is no magic formula by which one can generally establish a
causal nexus. The existence of the nexus will be dependent on the facts of a
particular case.‟

[22] I interpose to restate the salutary warning given by the Constitutional
Court in Lee (supra) para 73 where it stated:
„Our law has always recognised that the but-for test should not be applied inflexibly.
A court ultimately has to make a finding as to whether causation was established on
a balance of probabilities on the facts of each specific case.‟

[23] The following salient facts cannot be disputed; that Mr Yende was at
the railway station on the ill-fated day; that he attempted to board a train that
was in motion already; the train guard never saw him before she sounded the
whistle for the train driver to put the train in motion; he was only seen by the
train guard whilst already lying on the railway tracks and, importantly, that he
sustained the injuries reflected on the medical report at Elsburg railway station
on 24 March 2005.

[24] What is not clear from the evidence is how Mr Yende got injured as
there is serious paucity of evidence. To resolve this, we have to ask ourselves
the question: given everyday life experience what could have happened? Is it
probable that he flew himself against a moving train with its doors closed?
Unless he was drunk or mad, this sounds patently preposterous. The
converse thereof is: is it not probable that the train doors were open, that Mr
Yende was late for the train and tried to board it whilst it was already in
motion? And further that in the process he lost his balance and fell down into
the rail tracks and got injured in that process? To my mind, this appears to be
most likely scenario which accords with common sense and the probabilities.

[25] Applying the time-worn „but for‟ test to the facts of this matter flexibly as
we have been cautioned to by the Constitutional Court in Lee (supra), I fail to
see how one cannot find that, but for the failure of the train guard to make
sure that all the doors were closed before the train got into motion; the
inability of the train guard to see beyond the curve to ensure that no person
including Mr Yende was still attempting to board the train when she blew the
whistle for the train driver to put the train in motion; and for her,
notwithstanding this, to give a signal to the train driver to put the train in

motion, such conduct constitutes a direct and immediate cause of Mr Yende‟s
injuries.

[26] The Constitutional Court expounded the „but for‟ test further as follows
in Lee (supra) at para 46:
„In Kakamas2 it was stated that “(c)ausality often raises difficult legal questions which
cannot always be answered by strict adherence to logic. Recourse may sometimes
be had to what [the House of Lords] called the laws „empirical or common-sense
view of causation‟”. In Siman3 the minority judgment noted that “(f)inally, as in other
problems relating to causation in delict in applying the „but for‟ test the court should
not overlook the importance of applying common sense standards to the facts of the
case”‟.

[27] Whilst dealing with the same problem, this Court held in Minster of
Finance & others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) that:
„Application of the „but-for‟ test is not based on mathematics, pure science or
philosophy. It is a matter of common sense, based on the practical way in which the
ordinary person‟s mind works against the background of everyday life experiences.‟

[28] Most recently, Nugent JA put it even more succinctly in Minister of
Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden4 as follows:
„A plaintiff is not required to establish a causal link with certainty, but only to establish
that the wrongful conduct was probably a cause of the loss, which calls for a sensible
retrospective analysis of what would probably have occurred, based upon the
evidence and what can be expected to occur in the ordinary course of human affairs
rather than the metaphysics.‟

[29] Common sense and simple logic dictates to me that had it not been of
PRASA‟s negligence, Mr Yende would not have been injured by the train in
the manner it did. I am fortified in my view by the fact that there is no evidence
that he was injured elsewhere and not by PRASA‟s train at Elsburg railway
station on the ill-fated day. Significantly, there is no evidence or suggestion

2 Kakamas Bestuursraad v Louw 1960 (2) SA 202 (A) at 220B-C.
3 Siman & Co (Pty) Ltd v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1984 (2) SA 888 (A).
4 Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden (209/2001) [2002] ZASCA 79; [2002] 3
All SA 741 (SCA) at 917H-918A.

that there were any concurrent or supervening causes of wrongful acts by
other agents other than PRASA which could have caused his injuries. I am
satisfied that there‟s clear evidence of a causal nexus between Mr Yende‟s
injuries and PRASA‟s negligence. It follows that I disagree with the finding by
the court below.

[30] This brings me to the final aspect of this case. Whether on Mr Yende‟s
version, he did not make himself guilty of contributory negligence. If one
accepts as the most plausible or likely hypothesis which accords with
common sense and everyday life experience, that he was injured whilst trying
to board a train that was in motion already, then there can be no doubt that he
acted negligently as his actions deviated markedly from that of a reasonable
man. Furthermore, there is no doubt that his negligence contributed causally
to his injuries. To my mind, there is therefore a clear basis for apportionment
of damages based on his contributory negligence.

[31] I now turn to determine the extent of Mr Yende‟s contributory
negligence. This is no easy task as this cannot be the subject of pure
mathematical calculations. The difficulty is that there is no set standard to
determine apportionment. It is trite that such an enquiry involves a careful
consideration of all the facts and a measure of individual judgment and
discretion. Inevitably, there will always be a difference of opinions by different
minds.5 In the circumstances, I think that it would be fair and equitable to
reduce the appellant‟s damages by 50%.

[32] In the result, I would uphold the appeal with costs and order the
respondent to pay 50% of the appellant‟s proven damages.

Majority judgment:

____________________

A  Cachalia

5 South British Insurance Co Ltd v Smit 1962 (3) SA 826 at 837F-838A.

Judge of Appeal

___________________
H Mayat
Acting Judge of Appeal

Dissenting:

____________________

L O Bosielo

Judge of Appeal

Appearances
For the Appellants:
I Smith

Instructed by:

P D Yazbek, Johannesburg

Lovius Block, Bloemfontein

For the Respondent:         T J Bruinders SC

Instructed by:

Jerry Nkeli & Associates Inc, Johannesburg

Webbers, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

27 March 2015

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not
form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Yende v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (39/2014)[2015] ZASCA 49 (27
March 2015)

The SCA today handed down judgment in a matter in which the appellant (the plaintiff in the trial
court) sought to hold the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) liable for damages for
injuries sustained by the appellant as a result of the negligence of PRASA. On the basis of evidence
before the trial court, the appellant testified that he had sustained injuries to his head, shoulder and
arm whilst he was trying to board a train at the Elsburg station in March 2005. Sadly, his right arm
had to be amputated as a result of these injuries.

The trial court held that PRASA was negligent with respect to the procedure followed by a guard
relating to a train departing from the Elsburg station, which has a curved platform. However, the trial
court also found that such negligence was not causally connected to the injuries of the appellant. The
trial court accordingly dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages.

The appellant’s case before the trial court was based only on his own evidence in relation to how his
injuries were sustained. He testified in this respect that the train he was attempting to board (almost
immediately after it stopped at the station) had jerked and had started to move prematurely, causing
him to lose balance and to fall under the train. His evidence in this respect was rejected by the trial
court as implausible, given the testimony of employees of PRASA (confirmed in a log book) that the
train in question had stopped at the station for a full 45 seconds. As such, the trial court found that the
appellant’s evidence relating to the train moving almost immediately after it had arrived at the station
was implausible and there was no explanation in these circumstances before the trial court as to what
happened.

The trial court’s findings on the negligence of PRASA was based on the evidence of a guard relating
to the procedure followed by her between the time of the arrival of a train at the station and its
departure from the curved platform at the station. The guard testified that because of the curved
platform she could not observe the entire train at all times, when she caused the door of the train to
close and signalled for its departure from the station. On this basis, the trial court found PRASA to
have been negligent with respect to the procedure followed by the guard on the curved platform. The

trial court further suggested that the employment of a second person by PRASA would enable
PRASA to deal with the habitual problem of commuters on trains behaving irresponsibly by trying to
hop on trains at the last minute. However, as already stated, the trial court also found that such
negligence was not causally connected to the appellant’s injuries.

The majority of the appeal court (Cachalia JA and Mayat AJA, with Zondi JA and Van der Merwe AJA
concurring) found that in the absence of a plausible account of how the appellant came to fall under
the train, the trial court was correct in not finding any negligence causally connected to the appellant’s
injuries. As such, the majority of the appeal court dismissed the appeal with costs.

As regards the trial court’s finding on PRASA’s negligence, the majority of the appeal court also held
that the trial court effectively considered negligence in relation to the procedure followed by the guard
in the abstract, as there was no plausible account before the trial court of how the appellant was
injured. The majority of the court accordingly held in this context that negligence in our law cannot be
considered in the abstract without reference to the foreseeable consequences it produces, against
which a reasonable person must take precautions. In these circumstances, the majority of the court
found that the appellant did not prove negligence either before the trial court.

In a dissenting minority judgment, (Bosielo JA) found that the appellant had established that there
was a causal nexus between PRASA’s negligent behaviour and the appellant’s damages.
Notwithstanding the paucity of evidence before the trial court, the minority view was that it was
possible for the trial court to make a finding based upon common sense and probabilities. In any
event, it was also the minority view that the negligence of the train guard constituted an immediate
and direct cause of the appellant’s damages. Thus, the learned judge on appeal found that PRASA’s
negligence together with the appellant’s own negligence contributed to the appellant’s damages. In
these circumstances, it was proposed in the dissenting judgment that the appellant’s appeal be
upheld with costs and that PRASA be ordered to pay 50% of the appellant’s proven damages.

--- ends ---