Court rules PRASA negligent in not providing adequate security

Two men stand in an open doorway of a Metrorail train as it departs from Central Station in Pretoria.

© Leonard Zhukovsky – 123RF.com

On 1 January 2011, Mashongwa boarded a train operated by PRASA at the Walker Street Station in Pretoria. He was the only passenger in the coach. According to him, the doors did not close when the train pulled away.

He claims that three men entered the coach from the adjacent coach, robbed him of his cellphone and cash and assaulted him and threw him out of the moving train through the open doors. He sustained injuries and, as a result, one of his legs was amputated.

The case, which was driven by law firm CP van Zyl Inc, was won in the High Court but PRASA appealed and won the case in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The legal team who handled the case believed so strongly in the merits that they decided to take it to the Constitutional Court. Advocate Gilbert Marcus SC and Advocate Stephan Maritz, briefed by CP van Zyl Inc, appeared for Mashongwa.

Before the Constitutional Court, Mashongwa challenged the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that it failed to consider properly the evidence before it. He argued that closed doors and the presence of guards on the train would have reduced the risk of harm to him and that that is how the Supreme Court of Appeal ought to have assessed the evidence.

PRASA argued that there were reasonable measures in place to ensure the safety of commuters and that it was not under an obligation to guarantee the absolute safety of each commuter.

Sunelle van Heerden, professional consultant for Christopher Consulting, which acts for victims of train accidents and other injuries, said the Court decision that PRASA did in fact have the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to protect the safety of its passengers would make it easier for passengers to claim for compensation in future should they become the victims of assault.