Govt fence disrepair caused fatal collision, court rules

A FATAL crash in which a vehicle collided with a heifer that had strayed onto the road between Rehoboth and Kalkrand more than nine years ago was caused by negligence on the part of Government, the High Court has ruled.

In a judgement underscoring the importance of keeping Government infrastructure properly maintained and the potential costs both in terms of human life and money if maintenance is not done, High Court Judge Elton Hoff has ruled that an accident that claimed the life of Kalkrand area farmer Len le Roux on May 30 1998 was caused by negligence on the part of Government. The State owned both the heifer that was killed in the crash and the farmland from where the animal had strayed onto the road.A bakkie driven by Le Roux left the road and overturned at around 18h30 on May 17 1998 after it had collided with a heifer that was on the B1 road some 35 kilometres south of Rehoboth.Le Roux was seriously injured and died in hospital 13 days later.He was 35 years old.Faced with the loss of her husband, and with two daughters, then aged 10 and seven, to raise without the assistance of their late father, Le Roux’s widow, Laetitia le Roux, and the executor of Le Roux’s estate sued Government in the High Court for N$1,259 million.The money claimed from Government was to compensate Mrs Le Roux and her daughters for the loss of support from the late Mr Le Roux that they suffered as a result of his death.Part of the claim was also to be compensated for medical expenses of more than N$106 000 while Le Roux was treated in hospital following the accident, and to compensate his estate for the damage of some N$60 450 caused to his bakkie as a result of the collision.The accident had taken place on a stretch of the road where Government-owned land that is part of the Tsumis Agricultural College lies on both sides of the road.The animal with which Le Roux’s vehicle collided belonged to the agricultural college.The evidence placed before Judge Hoff during the hearing of the case confronted the Judge with testimony from five witnesses who claimed to have seen that the fence at the accident site was in such a state of disrepair that it allowed cattle to stray onto the road.Another five witnesses said the fences had been inspected and repaired prior to the accident and that no cattle could have strayed onto the road.Mrs Le Roux’s case was based on a claim that as the owner of Tsumis Agricultural college and of the cattle at Tsumis, Government had a duty of care towards motorists using the B1 road passing through farm Tsumis, but Government breached that duty or acted negligently by failing to ensure that the fences kept cattle from straying onto the main road.Judge Hoff found several contradictions between the versions given by the five witnesses who testified in support of Government’s case.One of these witnesses, he noted in his judgement, also admitted that he had made entries in his diary on the dates of April 29, May 5 and May 6 1998 to reflect that repair and maintenance work had been done and completed on the relevant fences on those dates already.These entries were however made after the witness had been asked by a lawyer who was at that stage acting on behalf of Government to provide him with documentary proof of work that had been done at Tsumis.The diary entries were misrepresentations and were documentary evidence fabricated to support Government’s case, Judge Hoff remarked.The contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses who testified in support of Government’s case were fatal to Government’s defence, Judge Hoff stated.The probabilities were overwhelming that a state of disrepair of the fences persisted until May 17 1998, Judge Hoff found.It was the negligence of Government only, in not keeping the fences properly maintained to prevent cattle from straying onto the road, that caused the accident that claimed Le Roux’s life, the Judge ruled.As a result, he stated, Government was liable for damages to Mrs Le Roux and the executor of her late husband’s estate.Judge Hoff only had to determine whether the accident could be attributed to negligence on anyone’s part.It would still have to be determined what amount of money Government would have to pay out as a result of the claim against it.Louis Botes, instructed by PF Koep & Co, represented Mrs Le Roux in the case.Government was represented by Herman Oosthuizen.The State owned both the heifer that was killed in the crash and the farmland from where the animal had strayed onto the road.A bakkie driven by Le Roux left the road and overturned at around 18h30 on May 17 1998 after it had collided with a heifer that was on the B1 road some 35 kilometres south of Rehoboth.Le Roux was seriously injured and died in hospital 13 days later.He was 35 years old.Faced with the loss of her husband, and with two daughters, then aged 10 and seven, to raise without the assistance of their late father, Le Roux’s widow, Laetitia le Roux, and the executor of Le Roux’s estate sued Government in the High Court for N$1,259 million.The money claimed from Government was to compensate Mrs Le Roux and her daughters for the loss of support from the late Mr Le Roux that they suffered as a result of his death.Part of the claim was also to be compensated for medical expenses of more than N$106 000 while Le Roux was treated in hospital following the accident, and to compensate his estate for the damage of some N$60 450 caused to his bakkie as a result of the collision.The accident had taken place on a stretch of the road where Government-owned land that is part of the Tsumis Agricultural College lies on both sides of the road.The animal with which Le Roux’s vehicle collided belonged to the agricultural college.The evidence placed before Judge Hoff during the hearing of the case confronted the Judge with testimony from five witnesses who claimed to have seen that the fence at the accident site was in such a state of disrepair that it allowed cattle to stray onto the road.Another five witnesses said the fences had been inspected and repaired prior to the accident and that no cattle could have strayed onto the road.Mrs Le Roux’s case was based on a claim that as the owner of Tsumis Agricultural college and of the cattle at Tsumis, Government had a duty of care towards motorists using the B1 road passing through farm Tsumis, but Government breached that duty or acted negligently by failing to ensure that the fences kept cattle from straying onto the main road.Judge Hoff found several contradictions between the versions given by the five witnesses who testified in support of Government’s case.One of these witnesses, he noted in his judgement, also admitted that he had made entries in his diary on the dates of April 29, May 5 and May 6 1998 to reflect that repair and maintenance work had been done and completed on the relevant fences on those dates already.These entries were however made after the witness had been asked by a lawyer who was at that stage acting on behalf of Government to provide him with documentary proof of work that had been done at Tsumis.The diary entries were misrepresentations and were documentary evidence fabricated to support Government’s case, Judge Hoff remarked.The contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses who testified in support of Government’s case were fatal to Government’s defence, Judge Hoff stated.The probabilities were overwhelming that a state of disrepair of the fences persisted until May 17 1998, Judge Hoff found.It was the negligence of Government only, in not keeping the fences properly maintained to prevent cattle from straying onto the road, that caused the accident that claimed Le Roux’s life, the Judge ruled.As a result, he stated, Government was liable for damages to Mrs Le Roux and the executor of her late husband’s estate.Judge Hoff only had to determine whether the accident could be attributed to negligence on anyone’s part.It would still have to be determined what amount of money Government would have to pay out as a result of the claim against it.Louis Botes, instructed by PF Koep & Co, represented Mrs Le Roux in the case.Government was represented by Herman Oosthuizen.