NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
|
|
- Myles Miller
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO. 2278/2010 In the matter between: MPHO MOSES NTSIMANE PLAINTIFF and GIZANI WILSON MALULEKA 1 ST DEFENDANT SYDWELL MACHVELE 2 ND DEFENDANT CIVIL JUDGMENT GUTTA J. A. INTRODUCTION [1] This is an action for damages arising out of a collision which occurred on 05 May 2010 in Rustenburg, between a Toyota Avensis ( Avensis ) vehicle with Registration No. FZG 690 NW, driven by the plaintiff and a Toyota Quantum ( Quantum ) vehicle with Registration No. FTS 975 NW, driven by the second defendant, an employee of the first defendant.
2 2 [2] The parties, at the commencement of the proceedings, agreed to separate the issue of quantum and merits, and further agreed that the following facts were common cause: 2.1 the identity of the plaintiff; 2.2 the citation of the first and second defendants; 2.3 jurisdiction; 2.4 that the collision occurred on 05 May 2010; 2.5 that the second defendant was the driver and employee of the first defendant; 2.6 that the duty to begin is on the plaintiff, but in respect of the defendants alternative plea of sudden emergency, the onus of proof is on the defendant. A bundle of documents were handed in by agreement and marked A. [3] The parties agreed that the only two issues in dispute were: 3.1 whether the plaintiff is the owner or lawful possessor of the motor vehicle with Registration No. FZG 690 NW, driven by the plaintiff when the collision occurred; 3.2 negligence. [4] It is the plaintiff s contention that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of the second defendant.
3 3 [5] The first and second defendants pleaded that the sole cause of the collision was the negligent driving of the plaintiff and in the alternative pleaded that should the Court find that the sole cause of the collision was not the plaintiff s negligent driving, then the defendants plead that the second defendant was placed in a situation of sudden emergency when an unidentified vehicle emerged into the second defendant s path of travel, necessitating the second defendant to take evasive action into the plaintiff s path of travel, thereby causing the collision. B. THE PLAINTIFF S CASE [6] The plaintiff, Mr Mpho Moses Ntsimane ( Mr Ntsimane ) briefly testified that he is 45 years old and employed at the Rustenburg Base Metal Refinery. He testified that he is the owner of the vehicle and was driving the said vehicle on 05 May [7] He testified that he purchased the vehicle and financed it through Toyota Finance. There is a residual outstanding in the amount of R for which he is paying monthly instalments of R per month. His licence was identified in Bundle A on page 9, which is valid from 20 January 2008 to 19 January [8] With regards the motor vehicle collision, he testified that: 8.1 on 05 May 2010, he was driving his vehicle from Rustenburg to Bleskop to collect his cousin, who had died, from the mortuary. His
4 4 wife, Ms Elizabeth Sinah Ntsimane ( Ms Ntsimane ), and his cousin, Ms Maria Mataleng Mphela ( Ms Mphela ), were in the vehicle. He saw a Quantum vehicle approaching from the opposite direction overtaking two vehicles in front of it; 8.2 There was a solid line that restricts vehicles from overtaking in the middle of the road, and on the sides of the road there was a yellow line. 8.3 he swerved to his left to avoid colliding with the second defendant and as there was another vehicle behind him, he gave that person the right of way and then entered the road where the Quantum faced him and he shifted behind the yellow line, off the road. The wheels on the right hand side of his vehicle were on the tarred road and the left wheels were on the gravel road. The Quantum collided with him on the left hand side of his vehicle. [9] Both his wife and his cousin were injured. He testified that after the collision he alighted and went to talk to the driver of the second defendant and asked him how he was driving and the second defendant replied that they bumped into each other and he did not bump against him. The second defendant also told him that he was trying to avoid a motor vehicle that did not stop at the T-junction. [10] The plaintiff admitted that there was a T-junction, but disputed that there was a car that entered the road from the T-junction in front of the second defendant. He testified that the accident was approximately
5 5 10m from the T-junction. He testified that the speed limit was 70km/h and he was travelling between 70 and 72km/h. He said the second defendant was driving at a speed of km/h. [11] When asked what steps he took to avoid the collision, he stated that: 11.1 he moved away from the main road so that the second defendant could have space to enter; 11.2 he stopped his vehicle and that is why the second defendant bumped against his vehicle; 11.3 he applied brakes when they collided. [12] Under cross-examination he was asked about the two cars he saw in front of the second defendant and how sure he was that the car did not come from the T-junction, and he replied that he saw the second defendant overtaking the cars and he was not sure if one of the vehicles came from the T-junction. [13] He was cross-examined about the speed limit which appears as 60km/h on the accident report. When asked, on your own version you were speeding. He replied, no comment. Further, he could not comment when questioned about the fact that there is no barrier line marked on the accident report.
6 6 [14] It was also put to him in cross-examination that had he not suddenly stopped, he could have avoided the collision. He testified that the collision occurred when the car was still in motion. [15] He testified that on the day in question he was on the road from 06h00 until the time of the collision as he was arranging his cousin s funeral. It was put to him that he was tired and emotional and not paying attention. He denied this and said that he was not driving the whole day, that he had breaks. [16] The Court posed the following questions: Question: Was the defendant overtaking two vehicles at the same time? Answer: He was overtaking the first vehicle and the other vehicle was close to me. He was about to overtake the second vehicle and I moved away from the lane. Question: After he overtook the first vehicle, did he go back into his lane and then attempt to overtake the second vehicle? Answer: He did not go back to his lane. The other car moved on. [17] The next witness for the plaintiff was Ms Ntsimane. She is married to the plaintiff and was seated next to the plaintiff on the day of the collision. She testified that they were on their way to the mortuary when she saw a white Quantum overtaking and the plaintiff tried to move to the yellow lane and the Quantum came towards them and whereafter the plaintiff moved to the gravel where the Quantum collided into them. She was unable to give any further details concerning the collision.
7 7 [18] The third witness for the plaintiff was Ms Mphela, the plaintiff s cousin, who was a passenger seated behind the plaintiff. Her testimony was briefly that there was a Quantum coming towards them and the plaintiff moved to the left to avoid it. The Quantum came in their direction and bumped against the plaintiff s vehicle. She estimated the speed of the Quantum to be ±100km/h, but could not explain how the Quantum came to be on the plaintiff s side of the road. She estimated the plaintiff s speed to be between 50 and 60km/h. [19] The plaintiff closed its case and Mr Sydney Machvele, the second defendant testified. C. THE DEFENDANT S CASE [20] He testified that he was a taxi driver, from 2006 until That on 05 May 2012, he was from Bleskop to Rustenburg Taxi Rank. He had one passenger in his vehicle. As he was travelling, there was a T-junction to the left and a car emerged from the T-junction without stopping and drove into his lane of travel. He testified that the driver of the unidentified vehicle was travelling at a speed of 40 50km/h. The car was a distance of 5m away from him. He did not know what to do. He could not swerve to the left because there was a furrow with water running through on the left side. He estimated the plaintiff s vehicle to be a distance of 15 20m when he saw the plaintiff for the first time. He decided to swerve to the extreme right. He flickered his lights to warn
8 8 the plaintiff. He testified that he went out of the road beyond the yellow lines on the right side. [21] After the collision he alighted and checked on his passenger, who had sustained an injury to her foot. From there he walked to the plaintiff s vehicle and the plaintiff asked him why he drove in that manner and he responded that a certain motor vehicle joined the road without stopping at the T-junction. The plaintiff accused him of lying and said he was overtaking. [22] Thereafter, a traffic officer arrived, who took his and the plaintiff s statements. He further testified that he often travels on that road and the speed limit is 60km/h. He also disputed the speed that the plaintiff alleged he was travelling at and said that the plaintiff could have avoided the collision by applying brakes or stopping if he was travelling at that speed. [23] Under cross-examination, he admitted that there was a barrier line that separates the two roads. It was put to him that he had a view of the T- junction. He replied that there are trees lining the road with the T- junction and you can only see the road when you pass the road. [24] It was also put to the second defendant that he could have avoided the collision by either entering in the yellow lines or entering into the T- junction on the left side of the road. He replied that there is a furrow and there is no space and that he had no choice. Further, he testified that
9 9 he was the first to drive across the road and into the yellow line on the right side of the road. [25] It was put to him that he had time to consider the options, namely, to turn left or turn right. He replied that he considered the options in that time that he crossed over the right side of the road. He denied that he drove at an excessive speed. [26] When questioned why the passenger in his vehicle was not called as a witness, he replied that the passenger was not known to him. That three days after the accident, he went to look for her at the hospital and was informed that she had been discharged. D. CLOSING ARGUMENTS [27] In the plaintiff s closing argument, Mr Scholtz submitted that the onus was on the second defendant to prove sudden emergency, which he did not discharge on a balance of probability. He referred the Court to the case of Moses Moyo v Autopax Passenger Services (Pty) Ltd t/a City to City (12937/2002) [2005] ZAGPHC 219 (20 April 2005), and submitted that the onus rests on the person pleading sudden emergency. [28] He also referred the Court to the case of Soko v Road Accident Fund (A708/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 257 (19 August 2008) and submitted that the res ipsa loquitur is applicable as the second defendant conceded that the accident happened on the plaintiff s side of the road. He referred to the case of Tony s Transport CC v MA Transport & Another (1278/2002)
10 10 [2006] ZAFSHC 93 (17 August 2006), and submitted that the second defendant had time to apply his brakes. He further submitted that the second defendant s version is improbable and that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the second defendant. [29] Finally he submitted that the second defendant did not plead contributory negligence, therefore the plaintiff only had to prove a form of negligence. Therefore the Court should find no apportionment of damages. [30] Ms Smit, for the defendants, in her closing argument submitted that the defendant did prove sudden emergency. She also submitted that res ipsa loquitur is rebutted in a case of sudden emergency. E. THE LAW [31] The plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the defendant s driver was negligent on a balance of probabilities. See Ntsala & Others v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co. Ltd 1996 (2) SA 184 (T) at 190E F. [32] Once the plaintiff proves an occurrence giving rise to an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, the latter must produce evidence to the contrary, he must tell the remainder of the story, or take a risk that judgment be given against him.
11 11 [33] In casu, the res ipsa loquitur maxim is applicable. The maxim gives rise to an inference of culpa and the defendant s evidence should counter the inference. The inference is displaced when: 33.1 the defendant produces evidence that shows that the accident may have occurred without negligence on his part; 33.2 the explanation must be reasonable; 33.3 the degree of persuasiveness required of the defendant will vary according to the probability or improbability of his explanation. See Rankisson & Son v Springfield Omnibus Services (Pty) Ltd 1964 (1) SA 609 (D) at 616. [34] The res ipsa loquitur is rebutted in the case of sudden emergency. The doctrine of sudden emergency is formulated as follows: A man who, by another s want of care, finds himself in a position of imminent danger, cannot be held guilty of negligence merely because in that emergency he does not act in the best way to avoid the danger. See R v Cawood 1944 GWL 50 at 54. [35] A driver confronted with a sudden emergency is one who has neither the time nor the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of the situation
12 12 in which he finds himself. See Goode v SA Mutual Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd 1979 (4) SA 301 (W) at 306G. [36] The Appellate Division in Thornton v Fisher 1929 AD 398 at 412 held that: In judging the action of the motorist or a pedestrian faced with sudden emergency due allowance must be made for a possible error of judgment. See also Marine & Trade Insurance Co. Ltd v Mariamah & Another 1978 (3) SA 480 (A). [37] The effect of the doctrine is that a driver acting in the best way to avoid danger in a sudden emergency is not negligent. The unexpected swerve of a vehicle is noted to give rise to sudden emergency. See Beswick v Crews 1965 (2) SA 690 (A). [38] The Court must decide whether on all of the evidence and the probabilities and the inferences, the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof on the pleadings on a preponderance of probability. The Court does not adopt a piecemeal approach of first drawing the inference of negligence from the occurrence itself and regarding this as a prima facie case and then deciding whether it has been rebutted by the defendant s explanation. See Arthur v Bezuidenhout & Mieny 1962 (2) SA 566 (A) at
13 13 ANALYSIS [39] The plaintiff was a credible witness who remained steadfast in his version of events and did not contradict himself. The plaintiff s wife and cousin corroborated the plaintiff s version with regards to the fact that the second defendant drove on the plaintiff s side of the road, causing the plaintiff to move to the far left side of the road, where the vehicles collided. [40] Although the defendant remained steadfast in his version, he did not strike me as being entirely candid and honest as his version that there was a furrow with water on the left side of the road that prevented him from turning left was never put to the plaintiff nor to the plaintiff s witnesses and it was also not mentioned in the statement taken by the police. [41] Further, the second defendant, under cross-examination, when asked why he did not turn left into the road with the T-junction, he only replied that there was a furrow on the left side, and failed to satisfactorily explain why he did not turn left into the T-junction. If the unidentified driver emerged from the T-junction and was a distance of 5m away, then what stopped the second defendant from swerving left into the same road or even applying his brakes sharply, which he could have done if he was driving at a speed of 60km/h as he alleged. It is also not the second defendant s case that there was a vehicle behind him, which prevented him from applying his brakes.
14 14 [42] Further, on the second defendant s own evidence, he flickered his lights at the plaintiff, who was only a distance of 20m away, which in my view created a further hazard as any reasonable driver who sees an oncoming vehicle flicker its lights will immediately move to its left to avoid the danger. [43] I am of the view that the plaintiff, who saw the vehicle on his side of the road, did what a reasonable driver in that position would have done, namely, to apply his brakes and move to the left side of the road. The plaintiff s account of the accident appears to me to be probable. See Burger v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1981 (2) SA 703 (A). [44] Even if I were to accept the second defendant s version that an unidentified vehicle entered suddenly from the T-junction into his lane of travel, which was a distance of 5m away from him and which created a state of sudden emergency causing him to drive across the plaintiff s lane of travel to the far right, the question remains whether there was any other satisfactory means available for the second defendant to avoid the collision. [45] In Williams v Nel 1939 WLD 188 at 196, Schreiner J stated: Now, going to the wrong side of the road when another vehicle is approaching on its wrong side is a dangerous course which the circumstances may justify but which nevertheless should not be lightly resorted to. If other satisfactory means are available for avoiding the accident then that course should not be taken, because there is always the risk that the other party may come back to his correct side.
15 15 Also see President Insurance v Tshabalala 1981 (1) SA 1016 (A). [46] A driver who is faced with a sudden emergency is required to exercise reasonable care and use reasonable skill to avoid the imminent danger. He is required to take such steps as a reasonable, careful man would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances. [47] The applicable test is how the reasonable person would have acted under the same specific conditions prevailing at the time of the accident, as experienced by the driver of the motor vehicle whose conduct is being scrutinized. See The Law of Collision in South Africa, 7 th Ed, HB Klopper. [48] Did the second defendant act as a reasonable, careful man when he swerved to the left to avoid the vehicle that entered the road from the T- junction? I am of the view that the second defendant did not take such steps that a reasonable careful man in those circumstances would for the following reasons: 48.1 he turned to the incorrect side of the road, in the face of an oncoming vehicle. The plaintiff was only a distance of 20m away; 48.2 he flickered his lights to the plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff to move to his left, where the collision occurred.
16 he failed to stop his vehicle, or to move to the left side of the road and failed to provide any reasonable explanation why he didn t turn into the T-junction I am of the view that a reasonable driver in the same position as the second defendant driver would not have swerved to the far right lane in the face of an oncoming vehicle. The second defendant did not act in the best way to avoid danger in a sudden emergency Further, the second defendant testified that as a taxi driver, he regularly drove along this road. Accordingly, he should have been aware that there was a T-junction ahead that is obscured by trees and should have kept a proper look out. F. CONCLUSION [49] Accordingly, I am of the view that: 49.1 The plaintiff is the lawful owner/possessor of the motor vehicle with Registration No. FZG 690 NW The second defendant was negligent.
17 17 G. ORDER [50] In the circumstances, I make the following order: a) The accident occurred as a result of the second defendant s negligent driving. b) The defendants are to pay the costs. N. GUTTA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
18 18 APPEARANCES DATE OF HEARING : 14 MAY 2013 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30 MAY 2013 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : ADV H.J. SCHOLTZ : ADV D. SMIT ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT : VAN ROOYEN TLHAPI WESSELS ATTORNEYS (Instructed by VAN VELDEN-DUFFEY INC.) : SMIT STANTON INC. (Instructed by DAVID HUGO ATTORNEYS)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO. 3305/2003. In the matter between: and JUDGMENT LUTHULI AJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO. 3305/2003 In the matter between: FAISAL CASSIM AMEER PLAINTIFF and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT LUTHULI AJ [1] The plaintiff
More informationPlaintiff JUDGMENT. was the driver of a motorcycle which the collided with a motor vehicle, driven at the time by a Mrs
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More information[2] The collision took place along Hans Strydom Drive, Pretoria, between. vehicles with registration numbers PXK 479 GP, and HMH 030 GP, driven by
2 [2] The collision took place along Hans Strydom Drive, Pretoria, between vehicles with registration numbers PXK 479 GP, and HMH 030 GP, driven by the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively. [3] Both
More information(2nd Plaintiff) and S A EAGLE INSURANCE CO LTD. HOEXTER, E M GROSSKOPF, MILNE JJA et NICHOLAS, NIENABER AJJA
Case No 604/88 /wlb IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION In the matter between: LUCREZIA TANDOKAZI MADYOSI EUNICE NOMSAKAZO BISHO First Appellant (1st Plaintiff) Second Appellant (2nd
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NUMBER: 13566/2012 In the matter between: MOOSA KHAN PLAINTIFF And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT RATSHIBVUMO AJ: 1. Introduction:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) MPUTI SEHLABANE...PLAINTIFF ROAD ACCIDENT FUND...
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT BISHO CASE NO: 326/98 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT BISHO CASE NO: 326/98 In the matter between:- MATATA ALFRED LUSANI Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT 1. On 23 October 1993 a motor vehicle driven by one Elliot Bushula
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationREPORTED OF MARYLAND. No. 751
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 751 September Term, 2001 JOSE ANDRADE v. SHANAZ HOUSEIN, ET AL. Murphy, C.J., Sonner, Getty, James S. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Getty, J.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND (HELD AT MBABANE) QINISO GULE. Plaintiff. And. THULANE MNDZEBELE Defendant. Civil Case No. 1316/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND (HELD AT MBABANE) QINISO GULE Plaintiff And THULANE MNDZEBELE Defendant Civil Case No. 1316/2004 Coram For the Plaintiff For the Defendant S.B.MAPHALALA - J MR. M. SIMELANE
More informationBaity v Burke 2019 NY Slip Op 30702(U) March 20, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: Debra Silber Cases posted with a
Baity v Burke 2019 NY Slip Op 30702(U) March 20, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 501025/2017 Judge: Debra Silber Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG Case Number: 1661/2009 In the matter between: EMMANUEL TLHAGANYANE Plaintiff and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT LANDMAN J: Introduction [1] Emmanuel
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 7586/2007 STEPHEN RICHARD BOSHOFF PLAINTIFF ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 7586/2007 In the matter between: STEPHEN RICHARD BOSHOFF PLAINTIFF and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Delivered on: 23
More informationANNA SUSANNA ELIZABETH VAN DER MERWE
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the case between: Case No.: 7475/2008 ANNA SUSANNA ELIZABETH VAN DER MERWE Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT: J. B. MTHEMBU,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION : EAST LONDON BONGA CHRISTOPHER MNTONITSHI JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION : EAST LONDON CASE NO. EL 136/14 ECD 436/14 In the matter between: BONGA CHRISTOPHER MNTONITSHI Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
.. SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PA : No. CR : vs. : : Petition for Habeas Corpus SHAWN RHINEHART, : RE: Counts 6 and 7 Defendant OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PA : No. CR-1551-2017 : vs. : : Petition for Habeas Corpus SHAWN RHINEHART, : RE: Counts 6 and 7 Defendant OPINION AND ORDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CA. 120/05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: THE STATE and OTILENG JOHN TONG REVIEW JUDGMENT ZWIEGELAAR AJ: [1] The Accused was charged with
More information[1] The plaintiff, an adult male, has instituted a damages action against the
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 09479/2013 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... SIGNATURE
More informationX-Moor Transport CC t/a Crossmoor Transport. Judgment. [1] This is an appeal against a decision of D Pillay AJ (as she then was), who
In the High Court of South Africa KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg Case No : AR 100/2013 In the matter between : X-Moor Transport CC t/a Crossmoor Transport Appellant and Gunther Richter Respondent
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) In the matter between: CASE NO: 33275/09 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLiCABLE PLAINTIFF THABO JONAS MMEKWAand (1) REPORTABLE: V^fNO.
More informationMARK HENRY STUART DAVIDSON JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 16 NOVEMBER 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN Case No: 11131/2007 In the matter between: MARK HENRY STUART DAVIDSON Plaintiff and ELLIOT JANTJIES Defendant JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF AVA CAMERON TAYLOR, by AMY TAYLOR, Personal Representative, UNPUBLISHED April 13, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 331198 Genesee Circuit Court DARIN LEE COOLE
More informationTHE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT
More informationStepping Out of Line
Stepping Out of Line ABSTRACT This article considers how the Court of Appeal has wrestled with issues of primary liability and contributory negligence in pedestrian running down accidents. By Michael Lemmy
More information[2] The following were placed on record as common cause; [2.1] The Plaintiff is the person mentioned at. paragraph 1 of the Particulars of claim.
2 there driven by Mr Masala Mulaudzi, alternatively Mrs Sarah Ratombo, knocked down the plaintiff. At the time of collision the plaintiff was a pedestrian. I then ordered to that effect. [2] The following
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUiH AreRICA. JUDGMENl. [1] The plaintiff is claiming damages from the Road Accident Fund
REPUBLIC OF SOUiH AreRICA IN TH~ HIGH COURT OP SOUTH Al=AICA GAU'J"ENG 01V1StON 1 PRETORIA CAS NO: 26910/2016 In the matter between: NICOLENE PRINSLOO Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT f=uno Defendant JUDGMENl
More informationQuestion 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by:
Question 1 A state statute requires motorcyclists to wear a safety helmet while riding, and is enforced by means of citations and fines. Having mislaid his helmet, Adam jumped on his motorcycle without
More information[1] The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant for damages to the
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:
More informationFROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction in the
PRESENT: All the Justices DEMETRIUS D. BALDWIN OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061264 June 8, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Demetrius D. Baldwin appeals
More informationReversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
Reversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, 2014 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00705-CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. BRIAN LONCAR, SUE LONCAR, ET AL., Appellees
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [ 1 ] The Appellant, as Plaintiff, had instituted an action
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) DELETE WHUJH*=VKR 'S N.OT TP^ C A B v g I {*} DEPORTABLE:. >?. OF INTEREST REVISED.1/1/il... vr='
More informationGarcia v Fernandez 2015 NY Slip Op 32363(U) March 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Orange County Docket Number: 1201/2013 Judge: Sandra B.
Garcia v Fernandez 2015 NY Slip Op 32363(U) March 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Orange County Docket Number: 1201/2013 Judge: Sandra B. Sciortino Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND DENASH MAHARAJ CHANDRA BUSHAN RAGOO TRINRE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-02506 BETWEEN LEON MOSES Claimant AND DENASH MAHARAJ CHANDRA BUSHAN RAGOO TRINRE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLICO (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND ERROL DUBLIN AND VICTOR EDWARDS AND MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: CV2008-03147 BETWEEN CLICO (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND ERROL DUBLIN AND VICTOR EDWARDS AND CLAIMANT 1 ST DEFENDANT 2 ND DEFENDANT MOTOR
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323755 Wayne Circuit Court ROSEMARY KING, DERRICK ROE, JOHN LC No. 13-003902-NI DOE, and ALLSTATE
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Not Reportable Not of interest to other Judges CASE NO: 4945/2016 In the matter between: S'MANGALISO HENDRY NGWENY A Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT
More informationFranco v Maurad 2016 NY Slip Op 30025(U) January 7, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11796/2013 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with
Franco v Maurad 2016 NY Slip Op 30025(U) January 7, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11796/2013 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationJOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No November 1, 1996
Present: All the Justices JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 960421 November 1, 1996 CARPENTER COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND T. J. Markow, Judge
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA DANIEL JOHANNES CORNELIUS BOTHA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 5393/09 DANIEL JOHANNES CORNELIUS BOTHA Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant HEARD ON: 7 DECEMBER 2012
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT Case No. 1745/2011 MAURICE GUMEDE And THE ARMY COMMANDER MBUSO ABRAHAM SHLONGONYANE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFF 1 ST DEFENDANT 2 ND DEFENDANT 3 RD DEFENDANT Neutral
More informationJ.E. v Cotto 2017 NY Slip Op 31615(U) June 22, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 20469/2015e Judge: Mitchell J. Danziger Cases posted
J.E. v Cotto 2017 NY Slip Op 31615(U) June 22, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 20469/2015e Judge: Mitchell J. Danziger Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PHILLIP PETER ORZECHOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 20, 2018 v No. 340085 Oakland Circuit Court YOLANDA ORZECHOWSKI, LC No. 2016-153952-NI
More informationOgletree v Rolle 2013 NY Slip Op 30477(U) March 4, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 29966/2010 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished
Ogletree v Rolle 2013 NY Slip Op 30477(U) March 4, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 29966/2010 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2011 CA 0084 JAMIE GILMORE DOUGLAS VERSUS ALAN LEMON NATIONAL FIRE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY GULF INDUSTRIES INC WILLIAM
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. Joanna Renee Browning, Appellant, against Record No. 081906
More informationfihj oj 9lidinumd on g fltumdtuj tire 16tft dtuj oj fjei'pau:vaj, 2017.
VIRGINIA: Jn tire Supwne &.ud oj ViMJinia fleld at tire Supwne &.ud fijuii!tj.ing in tire fihj oj 9lidinumd on g fltumdtuj tire 16tft dtuj oj fjei'pau:vaj, 2017. Orlando A. Cruz, Appellant, against Record
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF NISHAN SINGH & ORS...Appellant(s) :Versus:
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10145 OF 2016 NISHAN SINGH & ORS...Appellant(s) :Versus: ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) VIKINGS TRADERS LIMITED. and (1) DAVID HIPPOLYTE (2) JOHNNY SADOO.
SAINT LUCIA THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SLUHCV2001/0927 SLUHCV2002/0452 BETWEEN: VIKINGS TRADERS LIMITED (1) DAVID HIPPOLYTE (2) JOHNNY SADOO PARKINSON ANTOINE
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationIN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE * * * *
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE * * * * JANE HEALY, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CR09-100 vs. DEPT. NO.: 1 CHARLES RAYMOND, an individual, ALLEGRETTI
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF LC No NF DETROIT LLC and DAVID GLENN, SR.,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S TINA PARKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2017 v No. 335240 Wayne Circuit Court ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF LC No. 14-013632-NF
More information[1] In this case, the defendant applied for absolution from the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 22/05/2009 CASE NO: 12677/08 REPORTABLE In the matter between: TSOANYANE: MPHO PLAINTIFF And UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA DEFENDANT
More informationBETWEEN: ADOLPH LUPP GmbH+CoKG CLAIMANT BELIZE 1. YOLANDA RECTOR DEFENDANTS 2. RUDY GALLEGO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2003 ACTION NO. 452 OF 2003 BETWEEN: ADOLPH LUPP GmbH+CoKG CLAIMANT BELIZE AND 1. YOLANDA RECTOR DEFENDANTS 2. RUDY GALLEGO Mr. Phillip Zuniga S.C., for the claimant. Mr.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 CHERYL L. GRAY v. ALEX V. MITSKY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2835 Hamilton V.
More informationFILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/20/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND -------------------------------------------------------X Index No.: 151754/2016 MICHAEL SHAKHVOROSTOV, Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION MAKSIM
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session HANNAH ROBINSON v. CHARLES C. BREWER, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C99-392 The Honorable Roger
More informationMaysonet v EAN Holdings, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 31559(U) June 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Arlene P.
Maysonet v EAN Holdings, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 31559(U) June 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 150526/11 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationJHOOLUNSINGH S S v LAMCO INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANOR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. Seet Seesunkarsingh JHOOLUNSINGH
JHOOLUNSINGH S S v LAMCO INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANOR 2017 SCJ 51 Record No. 107682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Seet Seesunkarsingh JHOOLUNSINGH Plaintiff v. Lamco International
More informationDiener v Fernandez 2015 NY Slip Op 30109(U) January 5, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 6805/2014 Judge: Robert J.
Diener v Fernandez 2015 NY Slip Op 30109(U) January 5, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 6805/2014 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More information/ V. ,~ o w,i DATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA. (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHEJ;i,,,,;tQPti,1;..
/ V IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHEJ;i,,,,;tQPti,1;..,~ o w,i DATE '--------------~---~ CASE NUMBER: 7392/16 MORENA NARE RODGERS
More informationNew Hampshire Supreme Court October 17, 2013 Oral Argument Case Summary
New Hampshire Supreme Court October 17, 2013 Oral Argument Case Summary CASE #1 State of New Hampshire v. Chad Belleville (2012-0572) Deputy Chief Appellate Defender David M. Rothstein, for the appellant
More informationCASE NUMBER: 58643/08 D E L E T E W 0) REPORTABLE: YESINO (3) REVISED. S DATE SIGNATURE TURI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 58643/08 In the matter between CHARMAIN VAN DYK D E L E T E W ^^^^^S^OT^PUCA^TE 0) REPORTABLE: YESINO ( 2 )O^Wf T O O T
More informationBeasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Mary Ann
Beasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 310566/2008 Judge: Mary Ann Brigantti Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationPlaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants.
SHORT FORM ORDER Present: _------ ----~~~ ---------_----- LISEL NEBER, SUPREME COURT HON. JOSEPH A. DE - STATE OF NEW YORK MAR0 Justice TRIAL/IAS, PART 8 NASSAU COUNTY -against- Plaintiff, DANIEL SEBBER,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) In the matter between: DATE: 15/3/2013 THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 9, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000772-MR PEGGY GILBERT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ROBERT G.
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SliPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) [1] TREVOR GREENAWAY AND. 2012: September 26: November 21 JUDGMENT
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO ANUHCV2011/0474 BETWEEN: THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SliPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) [1] TREVOR GREENAWAY [2] TASSICA GREENAWAY (By her next friend TREVOR GREENAWAY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: ^ES*JjEf.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Haney v. Law, 2008-Ohio-1843.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CATHY HANEY, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, KEITH LAW and SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Northern Cape Division) THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Case No: 599/04 Date heard: 06 07/03/07 Delivered: 25/05/07 ANFRID JUNIOR RAATH PLAINTIFF versus THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT MOKGOHLOA
More informationNO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered March 14, 2012 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * OMEKA
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE SAUNDERS, v. KATHLEEN BASKA, Appellant, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) WD75405 FILED: April 16, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY THE
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Halton - Burlington 1260-88072586 DATE: 2009 01 30 Citation: R. v. Trevisan, 2009 ONCJ 34 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen AND Jessica M. Trevisan Before Justice
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA WARREN A. BIRGE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC10-1755 CRYSTAL D. CHARRON, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 5D08-4504
More informationBEFORE: HEFER, VIVIER, HOEXTER, HOWIE and SCHUTZ JJA
CASE NO. 572/96 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between SOUTHERN CAPE CAR RENTALS CC t/a BUDGET RENT A CAR APPELLANT and PIERRE EMILE BRAUN RESPONDENT BEFORE: HEFER, VIVIER,
More informationHills Road Bridge / Guided Bus works
I have been asked to provide a report on the Police action and evidential requirements for prosecution of road users who contravene the current driving restrictions applied to the area of Hills Road Bridge.
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Yarmoshik v. Parrino, 2007-Ohio-79.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87837 VIKTORIYA YARMOSHIK PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. THOMAS
More informationFermas v AMPCO Sys. Parking 2016 NY Slip Op 30294(U) February 16, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22618/2012 Judge: David Elliot
Fermas v AMPCO Sys. Parking 2016 NY Slip Op 30294(U) February 16, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22618/2012 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.:
MARIA CEVALLOS, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4th District Case No: 4D08-3042 v. Petitioner, KERI ANN RIDEOUT and LINDA RIDEOUT, Respondents. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE SIGNATURE ) CASE NUMBER: 13/45391 HEARD: 29 FEBRUARY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FANUS KURK MATHURIN. and FELIX WILLIE. 2012: June 6; 2014: October 2. JUDGMENT
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2010/1035 FANUS KURK MATHURIN and FELIX WILLIE Claimant Defendant Appearances: Mr. Vern Gill for the Claimant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) NOMCEBO SYLVIA CWAILE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED CASE NO: 2012/45728 24 OCTOBER 2014
More informationS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S STEVEN GARRETT and VIRGIL GARRETT, by Next Friend STEVEN GARRETT, UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2018 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 337057 Washtenaw Circuit
More informationNGATIA TRADING 103 CC t/a VERLEN MOTORS. BLUE POINTER 342 (PTY) LTD t/a C A Cars
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 568/07 In the matter between: NGATIA TRADING 103 CC t/a VERLEN MOTORS Plaintiff and BLUE POINTER 342 (PTY) LTD t/a C A Cars Defendant CIVIL MATTER KGOELE
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
ONTARIO CITATION: Leis v. Clarke, 2017 ONSC 4360 COURT FILE NO.: 2106/13 DATE: 2017/08/08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Lauren Leis Plaintiff - and - Jordan Clarke, Julie Clarke, and Amy L.
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-12-00560-CV CLARK CONSTRUCTION OF TEXAS, LTD. AND CLARK CONSTRUCTION OF TEXAS, INC., Appellants V. KAREN PATRICIA BENDY, PEGGY RADER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 11, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 11, 2005 Session CARL ROBERSON, ET AL. v. MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 02C701 W. Neil Thomas,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC91066 SHAW, J. SYBIL EPPLER, Petitioner, vs. TARMAC AMERICA, INC., Respondent. [February 17, 2000] We have for review Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc, 695 So. 2d 775 (Fla.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: BRYAN M. TRUITT Bertig &
More information(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <'
CASE N0:768/2013 DELETE WHJCHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: vpo (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y(ino (3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;....
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 05/10/2013 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationROOS v AA MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LTD 1974 (4) SA 295 (C)
ROOS v AA MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LTD 1974 (4) SA 295 (C) 1974 (4) SA p295 Citation 1974 (4) SA 295 (C) Court Cape Provincial Division Judge van Winsen J Heard May 29, 1974; May 30, 1974 Judgment
More information