MAWETHU SYDNEY MTSHAKAZA
|
|
- Derrick Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA CASE NO. 57/2012 In the matter between: MAWETHU SYDNEY MTSHAKAZA Plaintiff And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT DUNYWA AJ [1] This is action for damages for bodily injuries sustained in a collision the two motor vehicles with registration letters and numbers [...] a taxi and [...] a health emergency vehicle which occurred on 25 October 2008 in R61 road from Engcobo to Mthatha. 1
2 [2] The health emergency vehicle was driven on R61 from Mthatha towards Engcobo. On that road after Mandela Park there is an off ramp leaving R61 to Bedford hospital on the left side of the road. The insured driver was joining R61 from Bedford hospital direction. There is a stop sign for all motor vehicles joining the R 61 from Bedford hospital direction to the T junction. The collision took place at the T junction of the Bedford hospital off ramp. [3] The taxi was driven by Mawethu Mtshakaza (Plaintiff) and the Health Emergency motor vehicle was driven by Mziwakhe Ngidi (the insured driver) respectively at the time of the collision. Both drivers sustained severe bodily injuries as a result of the collision. [4] The plaintiff instituted action against the Road Accident Fund on the basis that the driver of the insured car was negligent. The trial proceeded after the court ordered the separation of merits from quantum in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. [5] The plaintiff s claim is set out in the particulars of claim as follows; SPECIAL DAMAGES (1) Past medical expenses R (2) Future medical expenses R (3) Loss of earning and Loss of earning capacity R GENERAL DAMAGES 2
3 (1) Pain and suffering R (2) Shock and discomfort R (3) Disfigurement R Total R [6] Mabandla Nxabethi testified for the plaintiff and stated that he is a member of the South African Police Services. On 25 October 2008 he attended a motor vehicle accident which took place on R61 next to Bedford off ramp. He found both drivers and motor vehicles at the scene. [7] He then drew the sketch plan and took measurements not in accordance with the scale. He measured the distance between different points using feet. He explained that the key to the plan reads as follows: A in the sketch plan is the insured vehicle after the accident, which stopped next to the stop sign. The stop sign is for the motor vehicles using the road from Bedford to join the R61. The motor vehicle was on its correct lane, closer to the edge of the road. [8] B is the plaintiff s vehicle which was off the road, opposite the off ramp to Bedford, on the other side of the road. The plaintiff s car was closer to the lane to Mthatha away from the edge of the road. It was closer to the road sign showing the directions marked C. B was 7 metres from the edge of the road in a ditch. C is the road s sign, a fixed object showing directions that Mthatha is to the East and Engcobo to the West. D and E are the edges of the R61 road, on different sides. 3
4 [9] E which was meant to be F if it was not for the mistake of Mr Nxabethi which he admitted is the point of impact very close to the centre line having double barrier lines. The point of impact is on the lane to Mthatha. [10] G is the tyre marks left on the road, as result sudden application of brakes. The tyre marks start before the off ramp to Bedford on the lane leading to Engcobo ending on the Bedford hospital off ramp. He assumed that they could have been caused by the insured vehicle A. The tyre marks were leading to the centre line in the middle of the road. The tyre marks indicate that the insured car was driven on the left lane to Engcobo and the motor vehicle slightly moved towards the centre line. [11] Mr Nxabethi interviewed the driver of the insured car who said the plaintiff s car never stopped at the stop sign F it just joined the road from the Bedford hospital direction. He was not able to talk to the plaintiff because he was badly injured. The point of impact was not shown to him by the two drivers. He could see the point of impact on the road from the debris and the spilling of oil. It was on the centre or middle of the road. The distance from the point of impact to the plaintiff s car was 20 metres. [12] The driver of the insured vehicle told him that he applied brakes to reduce the speed because the taxi suddenly joined the road without stopping. Both motor vehicles were damaged. The insured vehicle was damaged from the front and more on the driver s side. The plaintiff s motor vehicle was damaged on its side from behind the driver s door, but not necessarily in the middle of the motor vehicle. [13] The plaintiff s evidence confirmed that the accident took place in 2008 at approximately 08h30 pm to 09h00 pm. He was the driver of the motor vehicle 4
5 [...]. He was from Bedford hospital driving towards Mthatha. He stopped the motor vehicle at the stop sign. He saw a motor vehicle approaching from Engcobo direction towards Mthatha. He waited and joined the road after the motor vehicle drove past him. He joined the road and faced Mthatha direction and thereafter he saw two oncoming vehicles. The one car tried to overtake the other. The overtaking car was the insured driver s car. [14] The insured motor vehicle did not manage to overtake fully to return to its correct lane. The plaintiff then swerved to avoid the accident. The insured driver s car hit his car on the driver s door. His motor vehicle was hit and it landed in the ditch. He could have been driving at 20km per hour at the time of the impact because he had recently stopped. He was driving in second gear after leaving the stop sign in first gear. The accident was caused by the insured driver when overtaking. The insured driver s car stopped next to the stop sign, after the accident. It was next to the edge of the road. He could not see clearly how the insured driver s car was damaged. [15] The plaintiff s version is that the insured driver was negligent in that he did not keep the proper lookout. He was driving at excessive speed. The insured vehicle had not appeared when he joined the road. The accident took place after he joined the R61 and he was already far away from the stop sign. The point of impact was in the middle of the left lane his correct side of the road. Later he said the point of impact could have been in the middle of the road because his motor vehicle was facing the yellow line. He denied that the point of impact was infront of the stop sign. The point of impact was far away from the intersection or the T junction. His motor vehicle was on the yellow line when the collision occurred. 5
6 [16] The plaintiff vehemently denied that there were tyre marks from the insured motor vehicle before the stop sign. He disputed that there were tyre marks as reflected at point G in the plan. If the driver of the insured car applied brakes it could have been at the time of the collision. The tyre marks he saw are not before the point of impact, but at the point of impact. [17] He swerved to the yellow line to avoid the accident. The insured vehicle collided with his car on the driver s door and the door was bent to the inside. The insured car was damaged on its front right side and his car was damaged on the side. [18] Mziwakhe Ngidi the driver of the insured car testified that he has worked as a paramedic for the last 22 years. His duties entail the supervision of paramedics and to attend emergencies to stabilize patients. On 25 October 2008 he was attending a patient who had collapsed at Cicirha. He was driving from Mthatha to Engcobo on this R61 road. [19] He was driving a golf car marked like an ambulance. The red beacon lights were on at the top of the car and extra lights were also on next to the headlights. He did not put the siren on. The siren is only used when there is traffic in his lane. There was no traffic in front of him at that particular time. [20] He saw the plaintiff s motor vehicle joining from the Bedford T junction without stopping, at close range. He tried to avoid the accident by driving behind the crossing vehicle, after applying brakes. He was driving at speed of km per hour when the plaintiff s failed to stop at the stop sign. The area has a recommended speed of 80 km per hour. He was driving above the 6
7 speed limit, because the protocol for emergency vehicles allows them to exceed the normal speed limit by 30km per hour. [21] He had no enough time to avoid the accident. He applied brakes to reduce the speed. He hit the plaintiff s car almost on the centre in the area of the seat behind the driver to the area in front of the rear wheels. The front part of his motor vehicle was damaged. His motor vehicle did spin after the collision but remained on its correct side of the road. It is the plaintiff s car which landed in the ditch in front of the stop sign. [22] He saw the plaintiff s car metres before it joined the T junction. He ignored the motor vehicle because he thought it was to stop at the stop sign. He sustained injuries on his arm, leg and mouth. He denied that he was overtaking a motor vehicle, and that he drove on his incorrect side of the road. He never checked the tyre marks that night but attended the scene of accident some weeks after the accident. The point of impact occurred on his side of the road. [23] He further denied that the accident took place beyond the stop sign. The point of impact is at the stop sign where the plaintiff s car was crossing. He managed to control his motor vehicle. In his view the accident never took place in the manner as described by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff s version is correct the two vehicles could have collided head on or grazed each other by sides. The motor vehicles collided at 90 degrees that is his front part of the vehicle landed on the side of the plaintiff s motor vehicle. [24] In his argument the plaintiff averred that the two versions from each party are mutually destructive. He also argued that the speed at which the insured car was driving including his justification was not pleaded. The defendant argued that his version is supported by the first plaintiff witness in that the insured car 7
8 driver applied brakes before reaching the stop sign. The sketch plan also indicates that the accident took place at the stop sign area. If the two versions are mutually destructive, his version is more probable. [25] It is common cause that the accident took place between the two motor vehicles. It is not an issue that plaintiff s car was damaged on the side and defendants car on the front. The issue for determination by this court is how the accident occurred and who the negligent party was. The court should if necessary decide on contributory negligence. [26] The onus is on plaintiff to prove on balance of probabilities that there was negligence on the part of the insured driver. The party who failed to exercise a proper look out in this case is the one who was negligent. In Nogude v Union and South-West Africa Insurance Co Ltd 1995(3) SA 685(A) at page 688 Jansen JA stated: A proper look-out entails a continuous scanning of the road ahead, from side to side, for obstructions or potential obstructions(sometimes called general look out : cf. Rondalia Assurance Corporation of SA Ltd v Page and Others 1975, (1) SA 708 (AD) at page 718H 719B. [27] In my view the plaintiff was not a good witness as correctly pointed out by the defendant. Plaintiff s evidence is self-contradictory and to a greater degree it contradicts that of the first plaintiff s own witness. Plaintiff could not accurately indicate where the point of impact was. At one stage he said it was in the middle of his lane and later conceded that it could have been in the middle of the road. He could not clearly state where his motor vehicle was in relation to the yellow line. 8
9 [28] Plaintiff could not explain why the motor vehicles were damaged in front and on the side if they were almost facing each other. The plaintiff s evidence contradicted that of his first witness in relation to the location of the point of impact. Another contradiction relates to the tyre marks which were before the stop sign whereas the plaintiff maintains that they were at the point of impact. [29] The plaintiff s witness testified that the plaintiff s car was damaged behind the driver s door. The same evidence is disputed by plaintiff who testified that his car was damaged on the driver s door resulting in the door being bent to the inside. [30] In considering the probabilities it is important that, the independent witness called by the plaintiff has given evidence which favours the insured driver. The independent witness and the insured driver both agree that the point of impact was at the T junction or stop sign. They both corroborate each other that brakes were applied before the stop sign, inferring that from the tyre marks left on the road. [31] The defendant s version that the plaintiff s car never stopped at the T junction is more probable. This version is supported by the fact that the accident took place at the T junction. It is also supported by the fact that the insured driver applied brakes before reaching the point of impact. [32] It is more probable that if the plaintiff had stopped at the stop sign the accident would not have occurred. The tyre marks are an indication of a sudden application of brakes by the insured driver as testified by the police officer. The question is what would have prompted the insured driver to act in that way. In 9
10 my view it is reasonable to conclude that he reacted to the plaintiff s conduct in failing to stop at the stop sign. [33] The plaintiff s car after the accident landed in a ditch opposite the stop sign. It is more probable that the accident took place at the T junction. It is improbable that a motor vehicle far away from the stop sign could reverse to the stop sign because of the impact. This view is informed by the type of vehicles that is the Golf and taxi combi. Both vehicles were moving in opposite directions if plaintiff s version was to be considered. [34] In my view it has been clearly established that plaintiff was negligent by failing to stop at the stop sign and that he joined the road when it was not safe to do so. Plaintiff did not exercise a proper look out. The last question for determination is whether the plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident or whether the insured driver was contributory negligent. [35] This court must determine whether the insured driver s speed which was in excess of the permissible speed limit contributed to the accident. Whether or not the insured driver had emergency lights on is another disputed fact. The insured driver has testified that he was rushing for an emergency and his emergency lights were on. His evidence which could not be disputed is that their protocol allows them to exceed the speed limit. [36] The deciding factor is whether the insured driver had enough time to avoid the accident. It is the insured driver s evidence that the time was not enough for him to avoid the accident. The insured driver was driving for an emergency, with emergency lights on exceeding the speed limit in accordance with the terms of protocol. A motorist has an important duty to exercise 10
11 reasonable care when approaching a T junction, to avoid a possible collision with another car entering the road from a side road. See, Robinson Bros v Henderson 1928 AD 138 at There is necessarily a certain amount of danger in approaching a crossing, and it is the duty of every driver to exercise reasonable care to avoid coming into collision with another car entering the crossing from a side street. Having seen such car he is not justified in not taking further notice of it, on assumption that the driver is a careful man and may be relied upon to respect his right of way. [37] It is true that the insured driver expected the plaintiff s car to stop at the stop sign. It is also important for the insured driver to realise that travelling on a through road a motorist has a relative and not an absolute right of way when approaching an intersection and he has to have careful regard to other cars coming from the side road. See, Martindale Wolfaardt 1940 AD 235 in [38] The insured driver could not give an explanation as to why he only saw the plaintiff s motor vehicle lights at a short distance of+-30 metres away. It was at night and the insured driver should have seen the lights of the car joining R61 at that off-ramp a long distance away. The insured driver only saw the plaintiff s car for the first time at a short distance of +-20 metres away from the road. The above two omissions by the insured driver are indicative that he was driving at excessive speed. If he was driving at normal speed of 80km/h not exceeding 110km/h, exercising a proper lookout he could have controlled his motor vehicle after applying the brakes and could have avoided the accident. [39] It was the duty of the insured drive to exercise a proper lookout as well and moreover to take all reasonable steps to avoid a collision as soon as it became evident that another motorist, conduct created a hazardous situation on 11
12 the road, in particular by his failure to stop at a stop sign. See, Solomon v Mussett & Bright Ltd 1926 AD 427 at page [40] The insured driver s averment that the accident took place on his side of the road was not supported by the sketch plan which was from the independent witness. The point of impact was on the insured driver s wrong side next to the centre line. If the insured driver swerved to left as he alleges he could have avoided the accident or reduced the impact on collision. It the circumstances I am persuaded to conclude that the insured driver was contributory negligent in failing to exercise a proper lookout. [41] In National Employers General Insurance Company Ltd v Sullivan 1988(1) SA 27 AD Hefer JA at page 36 D-F stated: The driver in a through street, while being required to keep a general look-out, is entitled to assume, in the absence of indications to the contrary, that a driver approaching from a stop street will heed the stop sign operating against him and bring his vehicle to a stop. It is only when it would become apparent to a reasonable man in the position of the driver in the through street that the driver in the stop street does not intend to stop, or will be unable to stop in time, that the duty rests on the through street driver to take appropriate avoiding action. Until that stage is reached it is not incumbent upon him, under normal conditions, to regulate his driving on the assumption that the driver in the stop street may not stop. [42] In my view the plaintiff was substantially more to blame than the insured driver. In my view plaintiff s share of the blame was 70% and that of the insured 30%. [43] Consequently judgment is granted against defendant for; 12
13 (a) (b) 30% of such damages as the plaintiff may prove he suffered as a result of the collision which occurred on 25 October Cost of suit. DUNYWA AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Counsel for the Plaintiff: Instructed by Adv P. Mnqandi Caps Pangwa & Associates Suite 202, Office No 318 City Centre Complex York Road Mthatha Attorney for the Defendant: Mr Duda Mnqandi Inc. No. 18 Owen Street Mthatha 13
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA IN THE MATTER BETWEEN HARTLEY SIDNEY JOHN V THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
More informationAND TRANSPORT, FREE STATE PROVINCE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between:- RIAAN CARL VENTER Case
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE ( 1) REPORT ABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: ~ Date: 15 May 2018 Signature:
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA [REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA [REPUBLIC
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] This is a claim for damages suffered by the plaintiff on 20 June 2009 as a
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 1082/2011 Date heard: 07 March 2012 Date available: 18 October 2012 JUAN-PIERRE GERHARDUS DOUBELL Plaintiff
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 44331/2013 DELETE WHICHEVER ONE IS NOT APPLICABLE: (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
More informationCASE NO: A495 /2008DATE OF APPEAL: 18/05/2009 DPP VERW: MA25/2008 (18/5/MJM)
i ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria) CASE NO: A495 /2008DATE OF APPEAL: 18/05/2009 DPP VERW: MA25/2008 (18/5/MJM) In the appeal of: MOHAU JAFTA SEKHOKHO Appellant
More informationREPORTABLE. Case no: A 1077/96 245/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between : and. Olivier, Scott and Stretcher JJA
REPORTABLE Case no: A 1077/96 245/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between : VICTOR KIBIDO Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Coram : Olivier, Scott and Stretcher JJA Date
More informationEBRAHIM, J. [1] The plaintiff sued the Road Accident Fund ( the fund ) for. damages in the sum of R ,00 in respect of injuries
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: SANNA SUZEN OLIPHANT Case No.: 2865/2006 Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT: EBRAHIM, J
More informationILSE MARIE ERNST PLAINTIFF ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 35417/05 DATE: 25/7/2008 In the matter between: ILSE MARIE ERNST PLAINTIFF And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT MOLOPA J
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2008 CA 2073 ANN WASHINGTON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON VERSUS. Judgment Rendered MAR
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT tj NUMBER 2008 CA 2073 ANN WASHINGTON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD SARAH WYNN VERSUS JACULEYN CELESTINE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) CA&R 46/2016
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD POLLACK, Appellant No. 3000 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationExposure Assessment. What is my case really worth? Carl Fessenden Heather Fregeau David Rumore Porter Scott CSAC-EIA York Risk Services Group
Exposure Assessment What is my case really worth? Carl Fessenden Heather Fregeau David Rumore Porter Scott CSAC-EIA York Risk Services Group cfessenden@porterscott.com hfregeau@csac-eia.org david.rumore@yorkrsg.com
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: CA&R 303/2009 DATE HEARD: 25/08/2010 DATE DELIVERED: 13/9/10 NOT REPORTABLE
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: CA&R 303/2009 DATE HEARD: 25/08/2010 DATE DELIVERED: 13/9/10 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between MZAMO NGCAWANA Appellant and THE
More informationFD: ACN=3132 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 358 STY:Neukom v. Solaroli PANEL: Signoroni; Drennan (dissenting); Mason DDATE: ACT: 8(9) KEYW: Right to sue;
FD: ACN=3132 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 358 STY:Neukom v. Solaroli PANEL: Signoroni; Drennan (dissenting); Mason DDATE: 231286 ACT: 8(9) KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment. SUM: The defendants in
More informationSchedule 1. Calculation of Grid Premiums
Schedule 1 Calculation of Grid Premiums Definitions 1(1) In this Schedule, (a) at-fault claim means, in respect of liability described in section 627 of the Act or under the same or equivalent coverage
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 23669/2004 DATE: 12/9/2008 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CATHERINA ELIZABETH OOSTHUIZEN FRANS LANGFORD 1 ST PLAINTIFF
More informationThis appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to (2)(c) and (f), STATS.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 26, 1999 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will
More informationDECISION. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION, and the City and County of Denver, a municipal corporation, Agency.
HEARING OFFICER, CAREER SERVICE BOARD CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Appeal No. 58-07 DECISION IN THE MA TIER OF THE APPEAL OF: TIMOTHY SANDROWSKI, Appellant, vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, STREET
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 903/13 In the matter between: L A CRUSHERS Applicant and CCMA B E
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO: CA&R 361/2014 Date heard: 5 August 2015 Date delivered: 13 August 2015
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 1, 2007 V No. 271703 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT, and DETROIT POLICE LC No. 05-501303-NI
More informationIn the High Court of South Africa. Western Cape Division, Cape Town. In the matter between MOGAMAT RIDAA ABRAHAMS
Page 1 of 14 In the High Court of South Africa Western Cape Division, Cape Town REPORTABLE Case No: 15863/2013 In the matter between MOGAMAT RIDAA ABRAHAMS Plaintiff And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant CORAM:
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice. Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario. - and - Bill Steenstra
Court File No. 231/08 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario Between: Hydro One Networks Inc. - and - Bill Steenstra Heard: April 21, June 4 and August 30, 2010 Judgment:
More informationNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. LEGALEase. If You Have An Auto Accident
NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION LEGALEase If You Have An Auto Accident If You Have An Auto Accident What should you do if you re involved in an automobile accident in New York? STOP! By law, you are required
More informationGENERAL INSURANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL DAMAGE WAIVERS
GENERAL INSURANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL DAMAGE WAIVERS Our company SNL, a French company with capital of 585.000, whose headquarters is located Zone Loueurs - Aéroport Pôle Caraïbes 97139
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2007
SHAHOOD, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2007 TODD D. HURD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D06-2270 [June 27, 2007] Appellant pled no contest
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case No: A38/2014 Appeal Date: 4 August 2014 MDUDUZI KHUBHEKA Appellant And THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT [1]
More informationRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/17/2016 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/17/2016 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding two claims against the City by Rick
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: CAF 7/10. TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter between:- CASE NO: CAF 7/10 TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant ATANG BOSIELO First Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent FULL BENCH APPEAL HENDRICKS J; LANDMAN
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-257 RICHARD E. WALTERS, ET AL. VERSUS SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL
More informationREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APP. NO.109/2009
REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APP. NO.109/2009 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. versus KUNTI DEVI AND ORS.. Through:... Respondents
More informationNO. 43,996-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered January 28, 2009. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 43,996-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * *
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THOMAS C. GRANT and JASON J. GRANT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 10, 2011 v No. 295517 Macomb Circuit Court FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE LC No. 2008-004805-NI
More informationREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. No. 385/2008 RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION... Appellant Through: Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus SMT. MUKESH AND ORS. Through:...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationCASE NO: 154/2010 DATE HEARD: 19/10/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/10/10 NOT REPORTABLE WALTER SISULU UNIVERSITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE MTHATHA) CASE NO: 154/2010 DATE HEARD: 19/10/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/10/10 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ZUKO TILAYI APPLICANT and WALTER SISULU UNIVERSITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04. In the matter between: and FULL BENCH APPEAL
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04 NEO NGESI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT FULL BENCH APPEAL MOGOENG JP; LANDMAN J & KGOELE
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 TERESA SCOTT BENSON, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices AMANDA LELIA WAGONER, A MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, STACY WAGONER, ET AL. v. Record No. 972621 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 TERESA SCOTT BENSON, ET AL.
More informationINSURANCE ACT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FAULT DETERMINATION REGULATIONS
c t INSURANCE ACT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FAULT DETERMINATION REGULATIONS PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this regulation, current to October
More informationPOLICY FOR BILLING YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER
POLICY FOR BILLING YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER 1.) We will need a copy of the front and back of your insurance card. 2.) You may have a deductible. If you have not met your deductible, we will bill you our
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and REGULATION 664, s. 9. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and REGULATION 664, s. 9 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ZURICH INSURANCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN. JOSELINE HAMBERIETTA AMSTERDAM and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 2805/14
More informationBoomerang Tablet I. Covenants/Rules
Boomerang Tablet I. Covenants/Rules You are to conduct yourself in an ethical manner and treat all Boomerang property as if it were your own You are to treat all Boomerang customers with the respect and
More informationH2P CAR INSURANCE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM FORM
H2P CAR INSURANCE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM FORM CLAIM NUMBER NAME OF CLAIMS OFFICER PHONE NUMBER IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT MAKING A CLAIM 1. Please ensure PERSONAL INFORMATION is read before signing the
More informationIN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JACKIE CARDIN AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF MICHAEL LEE CARDIN, deceased, and JACKIE CARDIN AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL LEE CARDIN, deceased
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-11336 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 07-80310-CV-KLR FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 11,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Wendy S. Weese, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on September 19, 2013
[Cite as State v. Weese, 2013-Ohio-4056.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-949 v. : (M.C. No. 2012 TR C 160514) Wendy S. Weese, :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: EGBERT HANLEY and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders
More informationANDREW DENNIS CHARLES HUTCHINSON JUDGMENT
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE
More informationYour Guide to Driving Abroad
Your Guide to Driving Abroad In the event of an incident please call us immediately so we can help. 0333 234 0012 or 0333 234 6003 1 Your Guide to Driving Abroad What to do and know before you travel outside
More informationVICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE
VICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE Summary On the 20th October 2011, an appeal was heard in the Victorian County Court. The case of Agar v Baker was heard by Judge Allen. This case involved a mobile
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. VAN ZYL et DAFFUE, JJ et MIA, AJ
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter: KAREN PIENAAR Case No.: A140/2014 Appellant and VUKILE PROPERTY FUND Respondent CORAM: VAN ZYL et DAFFUE, JJ et MIA, AJ JUDGMENT
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and ONTARIO REGULATION 668
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and ONTARIO REGULATION 668 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-41 KELLI M. DUHON VERSUS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MARY K. FOLEY ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
More informationF LED. MAY 15) 9ODO clerw OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. State of Ohio,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio, Appellee, V. Katherine M. Kosier, ) On Appeal from the ) Court of Appeals of Lucas County, Ohio ) ) Sixth Appellate District Appellant ) Case No. L-07-1274 0
More informationINCIDENT WITNESS STATEMENT Department of Environmental Health & Safety
STATE OF GEORGIA Liability Incident Report Form If property of others is damaged (or alleged) as a result of the State s operations, whether negligent or not, report the claim directly to Risk Management
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00688-CR Sammie Meredith, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2020286,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOMFUSI NOMPUMZA SEYISI
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 117/12 Non Reportable In the matter between: NOMFUSI NOMPUMZA SEYISI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Seyisi v The State
More informationFINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Facts and Procedural History. Bridgewater Crossing Boulevard. When he arrived, Deputy Davila saw a vehicle parked
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO: 2014-AP-88-A-O Lower Case No.: 2014-CT-7383-A-O v. Appellant, JORGE OCASIO, Appellee. / Appeal
More information62 P.3d Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
62 P.3d 989 204 Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. -0166. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. February
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. CITY OF WOONSOCKET : : C.A. No. T v. : : NATHAN BELISLE :
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS CRANSTON, RITT RHODE ISLAND TRAFFIC TRIBUNAL CITY OF WOONSOCKET : : C.A. No. T15-0015 v. : 15412500176 : 15412500204 NATHAN BELISLE : 15412500206 DECISION
More informationCALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION SUBROGATION
CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION SUBROGATION WORK COMP LAW GROUP, APC ADDRESS 4921 E Olympic Blvd., E Los Angeles, CA 90022 TELEPHONE (888) 888-0082 EMAIL info@workcomplawgroup.com 2016 Work Comp Law Group,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON. Shelby Circuit #49803 C.A. No. 02A CV October 5, 1995
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON JAMES R. FRUGE and JANE FRUGE, Vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, FILED Shelby Circuit #49803 C.A. No. 02A01-9408-CV-00198
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CISKEI PROVINCIAL DIVISION) APPEAL. The Appellant was convicted in the Regional Court, Alice, on
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CISKEI PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO. C A & R 20/96 THANDO NCANA APPELLANT versus THE STATE RESPONDENT APPEAL EBRAHIM AJ: The Appellant was convicted in the Regional
More informationAUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA
AUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA PRESENTED BY JEREMY FLACHS, ESQUIRE LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY FLACHS 6601 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE SUITE 315 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22312 September 30, 2016 BAD FAITH-AUTO
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07 In the matter between: EVERTRADE Applicant and A KRIEL N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION KIM BOTES
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 300/2013 Not reportable In the matter between: LEEROY BENSON Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Benson v the State (300/13)
More informationDated 26 th February 2016 MANAGEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL ROAD RISK RV2
Dated 26 th February 2016 MANAGEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL ROAD RISK 07-024 RV2 Scope of the Instruction The contents of this instruction apply to all at-work road journeys that expose employees and/or members
More informationCollision Reporting, Investigation, and Analysis
In this procedure, a collision is defined as any occurrence involving a motor vehicle driven by an employee on company business which results in death, injury, or property damage, unless the vehicle is
More informationNATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV148 (Judge Keeley)
Draughn v. Harman et al Doc. 17 MARY C. DRAUGHN, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff, v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. (Judge Keeley) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
More informationADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Emily Bennett, Esq., from Russell Friedman & Associates LLP participated in person for the Applicant
American Arbitration Association New York No-Fault Arbitration Tribunal In the Matter of the Arbitration between: Westchester Medical Center (Applicant) AAA Case No. 17-15-1015-1692 Applicant's File No.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER Date of decision: 6th August, 2012 FAO 23/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER Date of decision: 6th August, 2012 FAO 23/2000 N.K.MUDGAL... Appellant Through: Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Adv. versus JAI PRAKASH & ORS...
More informationKEMP v SANTAM INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER 1975 (2) SA 329 (C)
KEMP v SANTAM INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER 1975 (2) SA 329 (C) Citation Court Judge 1975 (2) SA 329 (C) Cape Provincial Division Diemont J Heard November 5, 1974; November 6, 1974; December 11, 1974; December
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CO-OPERATORS
More informationDefendant s Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff(s)
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY PLAINTIFF S NAME Civil Trial Division Compulsory Arbitration Program vs. Term, 20 DEFENDANT S NAME No. Defendant
More informationNTOMBOXOLO SYLVIA NTSHENGULANA JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 849/12 Not reportable Vincent Olebogang Magano and The State Appellant Respondent Neutral citation: Magano v S (849/12)[2013]
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION
Williams v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION ANITA K. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO. 3:14CV00038
More informationDeposition Outline Personal Injury - For Defendant s Deposition. Randall G. Knutson Partner + Founder, Knutson+Casey
Deposition Outline Personal Injury - For Defendant s Deposition Randall G. Knutson Partner + Founder, Knutson+Casey randy@knutsoncasey.com 1. Name (a) full name (current) Addresses (a) current residence
More informationBoomerang Transport, LLC Independent Contractor Agreement
Boomerang Transport, LLC Independent Contractor Agreement This independent Contractor Agreement is made and entered into as of this day of 20. By and between Boomerang Transport, LLC a North Carolina Limited
More informationTOP 7 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK WHEN INVOLVED IN A TRUCK ACCIDENT
TOP 7 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK WHEN INVOLVED IN A TRUCK ACCIDENT (888) 839-5444 18wheeler-accident-lawyers.com Houston Office: 2700 Post Oak Blvd. Ste 1120 Houston, Texas 77056 TOP 7 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK WHEN
More information"Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an
20-279.21. "Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified
More informationTHE FLORIDA SENATE SPECIAL MASTER ON CLAIM BILLS
THE FLORIDA SENATE SPECIAL MASTER ON CLAIM BILLS Location 408 The Capitol Mailing Address 404 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 (850) 487-5237 SPECIAL MASTER S FINAL REPORT DATE COMM
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 657/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 657/15 BEFORE: R. Nairn: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 29, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW Evidence Since the trial court applied the incorrect standard in its order dismissing Appellee s charge for the officer s failure to videotape the DUI investigation,
More informationTHE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
521/82 N v H EMERGENCY TRUCK AND CAR HIRE JAGATHESAN JOHN CHETTY and THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED SMALBERGER, JA :- 521/82 N v H IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1432/10
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1432/10 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: July 22, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: August 3, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT
More informationTRADERS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY/ AVIVA HEALTHCARE SERVICE Applicant. - and - THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA ARBITRATION AWARD
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 268(2) OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and ONTARIO REGULATION 283/95 THERETO; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
More information