10/1/2013 · Mashongwa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) t/a Metro Rail (29906/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 275 (1 October 2013), On 1 January 2011, the applicant, Mr Mashongwa , was the only passenger in a coach of a train operated by the respondent, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA). At the time, there were no security guards in the train and the doors of the coach in which he was travelling were left open while the train was in motion.
8/6/2015 · Delict — transposition — public law duty — private law claim — damages Organ of state — transport utility — duty to prevent harm to passengers, 6/30/2015 · Mashongwa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa. The case involves whether the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (“ PRASA “) fulfilled its statutory and constitutional duties as an organ of state to take reasonable measures to provide for the safety of passengers, in particular, Mr Irvine Mashongwa , and in particular, if it did fail to take …
MASHONGWA v PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC) A 2016 (3) SA p528 Citation 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC) Case No CCT 03/15 [2015] ZACC 36 Court Constitutional Court Judge Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Matojane AJ, Nkabinde J, Van der Westhuizen J, Wallis AJ and Zondo J Heard August 6, 2015 Judgment.
4/25/2016 · On 31 January 2011, Irvine Van Sam Mashongwa boarded a train operated by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) at Walker Street Station in Pretoria. He was the only passenger in the coach when the train pulled out of the station and it was possible for passengers to move from one coach to another.
The Constitutional Court in Mashongwa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa [2015], said: “Lee never sought to replace the pre-existing approach to factual causation. It adopted an approach to causation premised on the flexibility that has always been recognised in the traditional approach.
