Biddlecombe v Road Accident Fund [2011] ZASCA 225 (30 November 2011).

The case is about a motorcycle accident at an intersection in Randburg, South Africa. The appellant, Mr. James Biddlecombe, was riding his motorbike and collided with a 12-ton truck driven by Mr. T P Motaung, resulting in serious burn injuries to Mr. Biddlecombe. The incident occurred at a robot-controlled intersection with clear visibility and functional traffic lights.

There are conflicting accounts of the event. Mr. Biddlecombe claims he was traveling at 60-70km/h with the green light in his favor. He asserts that Mr. Motaung's truck suddenly pulled off from a stationary position and turned right in front of him, leading to the collision.

Mr. Motaung's version differs slightly. He admits to stopping in the turning lane, as the light was red for his direction, and then turning right when it was safe, after the light had changed. He claims that Mr. Biddlecombe was traveling at high speed and should have stopped at the red light.

An eyewitness, Ms. van Eeden, traveling behind Mr. Biddlecombe, corroborates his claim that the light was green for southbound traffic. However, her view was obstructed by other vehicles, and she did not notice the truck's movements before the accident.

The experts agree that the collision occurred due to the truck turning right across the motorbike's path. They also agree that Mr. Biddlecombe saw the truck and tried to avoid the collision by braking. The experts' opinions on speed and stopping distances are uncontroverted.

The trial judge, Maluleke J, apportioned blame equally between the two parties, leading Mr. Biddlecombe to appeal the decision, seeking to recover more than half of his agreed damages.

The ratio decidendi of the case is that both the appellant, Mr. Biddlecombe, and the respondent, Mr. Motaung, were negligent in the lead up to the accident. The court found that Mr. Motaung's negligence lay in moving across Mr. Biddlecombe's lane of travel too quickly, and failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic. Meanwhile, Mr. Biddlecombe was also negligent in not keeping a proper lookout and being unable to stop his motorbike in time, even though the truck's movements should have been visible for some time.

The core legal principle underlying this decision is that plaintiffs in negligence cases have the onus to prove their case on a balance of probabilities. Here, both parties' versions of events were mutually destructive on the critical question of the traffic lights' state. The court's approach was to analyse the evidence, including expert testimony and physical evidence, to conclude that both drivers were at fault to varying degrees. This apportioned blame, and therefore liability, equally between them.

The court found that while expert evidence is important in understanding the technical aspects of a case, it should not be given undue weight over eyewitness testimony. The court stressed that each case should be treated on its own merits and that there is no fixed rule on whether to prioritise expert or eyewitness evidence. The court highlighted the need for a holistic approach in evaluating all evidence presented and cautioned against placing an onus on expert testimony to displace eyewitness accounts. The court stressed the importance of assessing the degree to which expert evidence is based on measurable facts and scientific principles before determining its evidential value. Ultimately, the court emphasised the need for a balanced and case-specific approach to evaluating expert evidence in conjunction with other testimonies.

**Biddlecombe v Road Accident Fund** (797/10) [2011] ZASCA 225

The Supreme Court of Appeal considered the proper approach to conflicting eyewitness and expert evidence in a negligence case arising from a motorcycle accident.

The court relied on the following cases in shaping its reasoning:
1. Abdo NO v Senator Insurance Company Limited (1983) 4 SA 721 (E): Kannemeyer J outlined a convenient method of analysis when dealing with conflicting expert and eyewitness testimony in negligence cases. The court should first decide which eyewitness version is more probable, and then consider whether the expert evidence displaces this provisional finding.
2. Putzier v Union and South West Africa Insurance Co. Ltd 1973 ECD (unreported): Addleson J held that where there is a dispute between expert and eyewitness evidence, the court should first accept one version of the eyewitnesses, and then consider whether the expert evidence is preferable.
3. Stacey v Kent (1992) 4 SA 495 (C): The court cautioned against adopting a general approach to conflicting evidence, insisting that each case should be treated on its merits.
4. Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund v Kenny (1984) 4 SA 432 (E): Eksteen J emphasised the value of direct eyewitness evidence over expert reconstruction in motor accident cases, due to the imperfect nature of the latter.
5. Van Eck v Santam Insurance Company Limited (1996) 4 SA 1226 (C): The court noted that expert reconstruction evidence is often based on imperfect observations.
6. Stacey v Kent (1995) 3 SA 344 (E): The court followed Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund v Kenny, emphasising the caution required when assessing expert reconstruction evidence.



This quote encapsulates the court's view that both drivers were at fault due to their negligence, regardless of the state of the traffic lights. Mr. Biddlecombe should have anticipated and guarded against the risk of the truck turning across his path, while Mr. Motaung should have been aware of the potential for oncoming traffic to attempt beating the red light.