In a claim with a twist against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), a man who lost his leg after an industrial roller crushed his foot, is set to receive more than R4-million in damages from the fund.
Ettiennne Steyn turned to the Bloemfontein High Court, where he initially claimed R9.2-m from the RAF.
He was working at a road construction site in July 2020 in Bloemfontein when he was struck by an eight ton SAKAI tandem vibrating steel drum roller, operated by Pieter Mpempe. On that fateful day Steyn sustained serious multiple fractures to his lower left leg as well as multiple fractures to his right foot and upper right forearm.
The injuries sustained on his leg resulted in an amputation above his knee.
Steyn claimed his injuries were caused by the negligence of the insured driver in that he omitted to keep a proper lookout for others in the vicinity.
The RAF denied liability, alleging that Steyn was the sole cause of the collision as he was the one who was negligent as he did not keep out of the roller’s way.
The court heard that on the day of the incident, Steyn was filling the roller with water from a water tanker truck positioned behind the roller, just moments prior to the collision.
Following the injection of water into the roller, it started moving in the direction of the nearby road. During this phase, the roller performed forward and reverse movements in order to lubricate the steel roller drums with water prior to compacting the asphalt truck's heated asphalt deposit.
At this point, Steyn was positioned behind the roller.
Whilst the roller was moving forward and backward, Steyn was called by a colleague, who wanted to give him certain instructions regarding the water tanker. Steyn walked closer to the colleague, as he was unable to hear him due to the noise at the site.
Steyn was told to direct the water tanker operator to vacate the area. While he was doing this, he was knocked to the ground by the roller which had moved backward, causing Steyn’s right foot to be caught under it.
The driver, however, was bewildered and moved the roller forward, thereby driving over Steyn’s right leg, resulting in the severe injuries he sustained.
In his evidence, Steyn conceded that he was aware of the safety protocols and measures applicable to road construction sites and the inherent hazardous nature of the roller. He conceded that by the time his colleague had called him, the roller had already started its forward and backward manoeuvres.
Despite this awareness, he turned his back towards the potentially dangerous reverse manoeuvres of an eight-ton machine. He conceded that this was negligent of him.
He further conceded that the roller is equipped with a buzzing siren that alerts those in the rear that it is in reverse mode and warns them to be aware of these dangerous circumstances. The roller was consistently moving back and forth, with its siren activated each time it was in reverse mode.
However, Steyn did not pay attention to this and he admitted to having been negligent.
Counsel for the RAF submitted that the only negligence that could be attributed to the driver was that he did not keep a proper lookout when he reversed. He submitted that common sense dictated that because the reverse mode of the roller is equipped with a siren, and because the roller continuously moves backwards and forwards, a reasonable person may rely on the beeping sound and would keep out of the way.
Judge Celeste Reinders said on the evidence as a whole she was satisfied that both parties were negligent.
“Both knew that they were in a secured area where the public were excluded due to the operation of heavy machinery and the inherent danger of the work undertaken. Both knew or should have known that as a result they at all times had to keep a proper lookout.”
She said the driver was well qualified to operate the roller and should have known that a failure to keep a proper lookout could result in serious injuries to others and in particular to Steyn, as he was in the vicinity.
Likewise, Steyn as a construction worker knew about the danger of the roller and that he should have kept out of its way.
“What happened to the plaintiff was a tragedy. It still remains as such, “ the judge said.
The accident left him wheelchair-bound, unable to do anything by himself without assistance.
She ordered that the RAF had to pay R7.2-m, but minus Steyn’s negligence, he is due to receive slightly more than R4-m.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za
Related Topics: