Prasa has been ordered to pay damages to a commuter who suffered serious injury after jumping from a moving train when she allegedly evaded knife-wielding assailants.
Image: Picture: David Ritchie
The Passenger Rail Agency of SA will have to pay up for a damages claim in which a woman suffered serious injuries after jumping from a moving train in an alleged desperate move to evade knife-wielding thugs.
The woman, a 27-year-old female, was a passenger on a train during February 2020 travelling between Cape Town and Elsies Rivier and, according to court records sustained a skull fracture, cerebral contusion and blunt trauma to her right shoulder, back, and neck when she jumped off the train between the Vasco and Goodwood train stations.
The woman submitted that her injuries were caused by the negligence of Prasa and/or its employees and argued this negligence on three grounds: namely that Prasa failed to ensure the safety of the passengers on the train by failing to deploy security guards at the station or on the train; that they allowed the train to move while the doors of the carriage were open and failed to avoid the incident when, by exercising reasonable care and diligence should have done so.
According to the woman, who boarded the train at 7.50pm with a companion, she jumped through the open doors of the carriage after three assailants stabbed the commuter standing next to her.
“The assailants had boarded the train at the Cape Town station and had been boisterous throughout the journey. The woman sustained injuries after jumping from the train,” the judgment noted.
In their arguments, Prasa denied that the woman was a fare-paying passenger and denied knowledge of the alleged incident.
In their arguments, Prasa pleaded that if the Court found that the incident did occur, the woman was the sole cause of the incident.
“She was negligent in one of six ways. She failed to avoid the incident when, by exercising reasonable skill and care, she could and should have done so. She jumped from the moving train of her own volition. She failed to keep a proper lookout when she jumped from the moving train. She jumped from the moving train when it was inopportune, dangerous and unsafe. She failed to disembark the train carriage when it was safe under the prevailing circumstances. As the evidence may prove, she was also negligent by such acts of commission or omission,” Prasa averred.
Judge Ajay Bhoopchand ruled that Prasa is “liable for the damages the Appellant may prove”.
Bhoopchand said: “This Court grappled with the circumstances that this case presented. A commuter jumps out of a moving train through its open doors to escape an impending knife attack. The woman wanted the Court to find Prasa liable, in essence, for providing her with an escape path from the impending attack. This Court pondered whether imputing liability in these circumstances was conceptually sound.
“This Court considered the facts of this case against the leading case on claims against train operators... Prasa has been found to be liable in many cases similar to the leading case, but neither the woman’s counsel nor this Court could find a case on all fours where a Plaintiff’s claim is premised upon her jumping off the moving train. This Court applied the principles enunciated in the leading case to the facts of this case and concluded that they applied just as equally to this situation,” said Bhoopchand.
Enquiries to Prasa had not been answered by deadline.
Related Topics: