The court has rejected a motorist’s Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim in which she alleged that her accident was caused after being blinded by the bright lights of an oncoming vehicle.The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town ruled in favour of the RAF after the claimant, Nicolene Van Rhyn, could not sufficiently explain why she carried on driving and hit a boundary wall after she was allegedly blinded by another motorist only known as Tupac. Van Rhyn sued RAF after it rejected her claim of compensation for a single car crash in Paarl that occurred in January 2018. She wanted the court to determine RAF’s liability.She pleaded that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of the second car in that its driver [Tupac] The driver was speeding, he failed to pay attention, he failed to brake, ignoring other road users, and he drove with his lights on. According to the judgement, Van Rhyn testified that the bright lights from Tupac’s car confused and shocked her. She said she could not remember anything after Tupac’s vehicle passed her as everything went blank and she couldn’t see. She lost control of her vehicle, which veered off to the opposite side of the road and collided with the boundary wall of a home.She said everything happened within seconds, leaving her no time to apply the brakes of her vehicle, leading her to collide with the wall, and she was later taken to hospital.Randall De Villiers, the only witness called by Van Rhyn, told the court that he did not see how the collision happened and could only state that he saw Tupac’s car driving in the opposite direction of the claimant, and its headlights were very bright. A few moments after Tupac’s vehicle had passed him, he heard a bang, and when he turned around, he saw that Van Rhyn’s vehicle had collided with a boundary wall.It was argued on behalf of the RAF that the claimant has failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that her driving her vehicle into the boundary wall was causally connected to the effect of the blinding lights of Tupac’s vehicle. It was further submitted that Tupac would not have foreseen that his failure to dim the lights could result in Van Rhyn driving over the road to collide with a boundary wall far removed from the road.The court said De Villiers’s evidence was of no help, as he testified that he did not witness the collision.“Van Rhyn’s evidence, on the other hand, does not clarify how her vehicle left the road and collided with a stationary object, the boundary wall. All she could say is that the bright lights confused and shocked her to the point that everything went blank.It is clear from the evidence that the collision with the boundary wall occurred after the insured vehicle had passed the plaintiff’s vehicle. The reason why the plaintiff’s vehicle continued driving after the brief effect of the blinding lights has not been explained,” said Judge Lister Nuku in his judgement. He further said it was the shock and confusion that directly caused her to drive off the road. “The shock and confusion caused by being dazzled by oncoming bright traffic lights is inconsistent with typical human experience.He said Van Rhyn’s evidence had significant gaps.“The plaintiff’s failure to explain how her vehicle collided with the wall is, in my opinion, fatal to her case. After all, the court is required to make its determination based on the evidence presented. In the absence of such evidence, the court is not required to speculate as to what could have caused the plaintiff’s motor vehicle to drive over the road and collide with a stationary boundary wall. The plaintiff’s claim, therefore, cannot succeed,” The judge then dismissed her application. He dismissed her application. Sowetan
2025-10-27 11:12:12
Court rejects motorist’s RAF claim over ‘blinding lights’
