Each time we get behind the wheel, we assume that traffic shall flow, everything shall go as it should, and we will all get home safely at the end of the day. However, one split second is all it takes for everything to change.
When the unexpected happens in your life due to a motor vehicle collision, the administrative and financial difficulties flowing from such an incident are often as painstaking as any physical injuries might be. The safety net relied on to provide victims with compensation for injury, is the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”), but simply having sustained injuries is not in itself enough to guarantee a payout. The claim against the Fund arises if the driver of the vehicle which caused your injury (the insured driver) is negligent. In proving your claim against the RAF, the first consideration is the determination of liability. The elements in assessing the negligence are the why, how and by whom the accident was caused. The element of causation, as it is referred to, is situated at the centre of this determination.
What is causation
Causation considers whether there is a sufficient link between the accident and the damages… tracing the chain of events to identify whether the accident was the sole driving force behind the physical, financial or emotional harm suffered. Causation is generally established by two distinct enquiries. Firstly, factual causation is determined by the so-called ‘but for’ test, asking the question: “but for” the wrongful conduct, would the complainant have suffered the loss or not? Secondly, legal causation is determined by examining whether the wrongful conduct is sufficiently closely linked or, in the alternative, too remote, to the harm. Causation is established based on both of the above enquiries, unless an unforeseen or independent intervening act interrupts this link between the wrongful conduct and the harm.
If you are considering making a claim against RAF – or if you are simply trying to understand what is required to succeed – the judgment referred to in this article explores this major pothole in the legal road that must be considered. In the recent decision of Nicolene van Rhyn v Road Accident Fund [2025] ZAWCHC 492, that was handed down by the high court on 24 October 2025, the court dealt with the importance of bringing sufficient evidence to court to establish a close enough causal link between the damages sustained and the accident itself.
Read the case here:
https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2025/492.html
The court’s roadmap to navigating causation
In this matter the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries when the vehicle she was driving collided with a boundary wall of a home on the opposite side of the road. Central to this matter was the plaintiff’s version that the collision was caused by another vehicle driving in the opposite direction with blinding brights on. The plaintiff alleged that the collision and the injuries she sustained were a direct result of the other insured driver’s negligence. The plaintiff claimed from the RAF based on the negligence of the unknown driver which, as she contended, was the cause of her injuries.
The plaintiff’s version regarding negligence was that the other driver was driving at an excessive speed, did not exercise reasonable care by driving with their brights on, and that they drove in a manner that disregarded the safety of other road users. To this, the RAF contended that it had no knowledge of the allegations as, the driver being unknown, they could not obtain their version. The plaintiff insisted that she did everything in her power to prevent a collision from occurring, such as flickering the vehicle headlights to signal the other driver to dim theirs. On the plaintiff’s version, the lights of the other vehicle “confused and shocked” her. The plaintiff alleged that she could not remember anything after the other vehicle passed and that everything went “blank” in that moment. The plaintiff subsequently lost control of the vehicle, veering off onto the opposite side of the road and colliding with the boundary wall. The events of that night occurred all at once, in seconds, and too fast for the plaintiff to even have considered applying brakes.
Oncoming bright lights
The plaintiff’s argument was that, in foreseeing that the conduct in question could cause accident, the other driver had been negligent in failing to dim their lights. On this point, the court was referred to caselaw setting a precedent for accidents caused by bright lights of other oncoming vehicles. However, the facts of those cases differed as they all had to do with collisions with objects within the vehicles’ immediate vicinity. The plaintiff’s sole witness, who could have materially contributed in proving the claim, was of no substantial use to the court, as the witness had only heard the sound of the plaintiff’s vehicle crashing, but did not physically see the collision into the boundary wall itself. The witness merely confirmed that the other vehicle’s lights were extremely bright.
The RAF similarly referred the court to caselaw but instead argued that the insured driver would not have foreseen that their failure to dim the brights would result in another vehicle driving onto the other side of the road and into a boundary wall. The RAF successfully argued that these two happenings are too far removed from one another.
Faced with these competing arguments, the court had to turn to the actual evidence presented to it to come to a decision as to the imposition of liability. The plaintiff’s evidence did not provide clarity to the court as to how the vehicle, after the driver was blinded, came to be driven into the stationary boundary wall. The plaintiff alleged that they were “confused and shocked” and everything was “blank”. This the court found was not sufficient to connect the blinding lights with the subsequent crash. On the contrary, in the court’s view the plaintiff’s argument and supporting evidence – or rather the lack thereof – created a gap in time and space… a before- and after- the vehicle had passed.
Lack of clarity
While the court accepted that driving with brights in the face of oncoming traffic is indeed negligent, that in itself cannot directly explain a collision with an object that is stationary and far removed from the road. Despite the fact that the collision occurred at night on a dark road with no streetlights, the area where the collision occurred was familiar to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was travelling at approximately 60 km/h on her way home after work… a route familiar to the plaintiff. The court was struck by this lack of clarity as to why the plaintiff’s vehicle even continued driving after the effect of the blinding lights. In these circumstances, the court ruled that “shock” and “confusion” to such an extreme degree is inconsistent with typical human experience.
The plaintiff’s claim unfortunately did not succeed, since she failed to establish a connection – the causal link – between her reaction to the bright oncoming lights and the collision itself. The plaintiff’s witness was of no use, and they failed to sufficiently link the fact that the blinding lights was the direct and primary reason for the collision with the boundary wall on the opposite side of the road. The court’s determination was based on the scant evidence that had been presented to it. Where insufficient evidence is presented to the court, the court is not in a position to speculate the ‘what could have happened if…’ questions.
Conclusion
In claiming that another person had ‘caused’ damage that you would like to claim from the RAF or any other party, it is imperative that there is sufficient evidence presented to the court in support of sufficiently alleged statements that connect the negligent conduct with the harm caused as a result thereof. This case shines a headlight on the importance of connecting all your dots and crossing all your ‘t’s. By understanding what the courts look for and preparing evidence that sufficiently establishes every link in the chain, the odds of obtaining justice are tipped in your favour.
When the unexpected happens in your life due to a motor vehicle collision, the administrative and financial difficulties flowing from such an incident are often as painstaking as any physical injuries might be. The safety net relied on to provide victims with compensation for injury, is the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”), but simply having sustained injuries is not in itself enough to guarantee a payout. The claim against the Fund arises if the driver of the vehicle which caused your injury (the insured driver) is negligent. In proving your claim against the RAF, the first consideration is the determination of liability. The elements in assessing the negligence are the why, how and by whom the accident was caused. The element of causation, as it is referred to, is situated at the centre of this determination.
What is causation
Causation considers whether there is a sufficient link between the accident and the damages… tracing the chain of events to identify whether the accident was the sole driving force behind the physical, financial or emotional harm suffered. Causation is generally established by two distinct enquiries. Firstly, factual causation is determined by the so-called ‘but for’ test, asking the question: “but for” the wrongful conduct, would the complainant have suffered the loss or not? Secondly, legal causation is determined by examining whether the wrongful conduct is sufficiently closely linked or, in the alternative, too remote, to the harm. Causation is established based on both of the above enquiries, unless an unforeseen or independent intervening act interrupts this link between the wrongful conduct and the harm.
If you are considering making a claim against RAF – or if you are simply trying to understand what is required to succeed – the judgment referred to in this article explores this major pothole in the legal road that must be considered. In the recent decision of Nicolene van Rhyn v Road Accident Fund [2025] ZAWCHC 492, that was handed down by the high court on 24 October 2025, the court dealt with the importance of bringing sufficient evidence to court to establish a close enough causal link between the damages sustained and the accident itself.
Read the case here:
https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2025/492.html
The court’s roadmap to navigating causation
In this matter the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries when the vehicle she was driving collided with a boundary wall of a home on the opposite side of the road. Central to this matter was the plaintiff’s version that the collision was caused by another vehicle driving in the opposite direction with blinding brights on. The plaintiff alleged that the collision and the injuries she sustained were a direct result of the other insured driver’s negligence. The plaintiff claimed from the RAF based on the negligence of the unknown driver which, as she contended, was the cause of her injuries.
The plaintiff’s version regarding negligence was that the other driver was driving at an excessive speed, did not exercise reasonable care by driving with their brights on, and that they drove in a manner that disregarded the safety of other road users. To this, the RAF contended that it had no knowledge of the allegations as, the driver being unknown, they could not obtain their version. The plaintiff insisted that she did everything in her power to prevent a collision from occurring, such as flickering the vehicle headlights to signal the other driver to dim theirs. On the plaintiff’s version, the lights of the other vehicle “confused and shocked” her. The plaintiff alleged that she could not remember anything after the other vehicle passed and that everything went “blank” in that moment. The plaintiff subsequently lost control of the vehicle, veering off onto the opposite side of the road and colliding with the boundary wall. The events of that night occurred all at once, in seconds, and too fast for the plaintiff to even have considered applying brakes.
Oncoming bright lights
The plaintiff’s argument was that, in foreseeing that the conduct in question could cause accident, the other driver had been negligent in failing to dim their lights. On this point, the court was referred to caselaw setting a precedent for accidents caused by bright lights of other oncoming vehicles. However, the facts of those cases differed as they all had to do with collisions with objects within the vehicles’ immediate vicinity. The plaintiff’s sole witness, who could have materially contributed in proving the claim, was of no substantial use to the court, as the witness had only heard the sound of the plaintiff’s vehicle crashing, but did not physically see the collision into the boundary wall itself. The witness merely confirmed that the other vehicle’s lights were extremely bright.
The RAF similarly referred the court to caselaw but instead argued that the insured driver would not have foreseen that their failure to dim the brights would result in another vehicle driving onto the other side of the road and into a boundary wall. The RAF successfully argued that these two happenings are too far removed from one another.
Faced with these competing arguments, the court had to turn to the actual evidence presented to it to come to a decision as to the imposition of liability. The plaintiff’s evidence did not provide clarity to the court as to how the vehicle, after the driver was blinded, came to be driven into the stationary boundary wall. The plaintiff alleged that they were “confused and shocked” and everything was “blank”. This the court found was not sufficient to connect the blinding lights with the subsequent crash. On the contrary, in the court’s view the plaintiff’s argument and supporting evidence – or rather the lack thereof – created a gap in time and space… a before- and after- the vehicle had passed.
Lack of clarity
While the court accepted that driving with brights in the face of oncoming traffic is indeed negligent, that in itself cannot directly explain a collision with an object that is stationary and far removed from the road. Despite the fact that the collision occurred at night on a dark road with no streetlights, the area where the collision occurred was familiar to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was travelling at approximately 60 km/h on her way home after work… a route familiar to the plaintiff. The court was struck by this lack of clarity as to why the plaintiff’s vehicle even continued driving after the effect of the blinding lights. In these circumstances, the court ruled that “shock” and “confusion” to such an extreme degree is inconsistent with typical human experience.
The plaintiff’s claim unfortunately did not succeed, since she failed to establish a connection – the causal link – between her reaction to the bright oncoming lights and the collision itself. The plaintiff’s witness was of no use, and they failed to sufficiently link the fact that the blinding lights was the direct and primary reason for the collision with the boundary wall on the opposite side of the road. The court’s determination was based on the scant evidence that had been presented to it. Where insufficient evidence is presented to the court, the court is not in a position to speculate the ‘what could have happened if…’ questions.
Conclusion
In claiming that another person had ‘caused’ damage that you would like to claim from the RAF or any other party, it is imperative that there is sufficient evidence presented to the court in support of sufficiently alleged statements that connect the negligent conduct with the harm caused as a result thereof. This case shines a headlight on the importance of connecting all your dots and crossing all your ‘t’s. By understanding what the courts look for and preparing evidence that sufficiently establishes every link in the chain, the odds of obtaining justice are tipped in your favour.
LLB
LLB
BA LLB
LLB
LLB LLM
B Com LLB
LLB
LLB
B Com LLB
B Com LLB
