Western Cape High Court finds that Prasa has a public legal duty to ensure reasonable security measures are in place to protect passengers from harm.
Image: Armand Hough /FILE
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) was held liable for 100% proven damages suffered by a Cape Town passenger thrown out of a moving train during a robbery near Nyanga 15 years ago.
In a judgment delivered last week, Western Cape High Court Acting Judge Siviwe Yake found that Prasa has a public legal duty to ensure reasonable security measures are in place to protect passengers from harm.
The court papers said Aisha Barnabas instituted a damages claim following an incident on May 9, 2011, while travelling on a train from Cape Town to Mitchell’s Plain via Nyanga stations.
It was alleged that when the train departed from Nyanga station, a commotion arose within the carriage occupied by Barnabas, who was allegedly pushed out of the moving train through an open door by a man robbing her of her bag.
The papers said Barnabas had sustained a severe laceration to the leg and head, and a dislocated shoulder. She was subsequently admitted to hospital, underwent medical treatment, left disabled, suffered pain, and was anticipated to suffer loss of income as well as a diminution in the amenities of life.
Barnabas had blamed Prasa for negligence for allowing the train to travel with its doors open and failing to exercise the reasonable care and diligence required to stop the foreseeable harm.
Prasa has denied negligence and pleaded that Barnabas was solely responsible for her injuries or that her own conduct contributed to her injury.
The Acting Judge Yake said Prasa’s duty arose from the very nature of its operations as a public carrier entrusted with the safe conveyance of commuters, and not from the existence of a contractual entitlement such as a ticket.
“I find that the plaintiff held a valid monthly ticket and was a lawful train user. In the result, the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving lawful presence on the train.”
Yake also said the evidence before the court was unchallenged that no security personnel were present in the carriage to ensure that the doors were closed while the train was in motion.
The courts, she said, have held that an open train door is a potential danger while the train is in motion and that such danger exists in relation to every commuter on board the train.
“The question is whether a reasonable organ of State, in the defendant’s position, would have foreseen harm befalling the plaintiff as a result of the train doors being open while in motion.”
The Acting Judge said Prasa was obliged to ensure that the train did not depart the station with open doors, and that doors remained closed while in motion.
Prasa failed to comply with the safety precaution of keeping train doors closed, and such failure amounted to negligence.
“I find that the reasonable possibility of harm was foreseeable, and the defendant’s omission constitutes actionable negligence,” she said.
Yake said Prasa led no evidence to suggest that Barnabas either opened the train doors herself or caused them to be opened in any manner.
“On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the environment within the carriage was chaotic, with a group of approximately five men engaged in robbing passengers. To expect any person, under such circumstances, to exercise control over her precise position in relation to the open door is manifestly unreasonable. In such a situation, it is natural and foreseeable that a passenger would act instinctively to evade the robbers.”
Yake was satisfied that Prasa was solely liable for the harm suffered by the Barnabas.
“The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages resulting from the incident of falling from a train on May 9, 2011. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a party-and-party scale, including the cost of counsel to be taxed on a Scale B,” she said in her ruling.
