Prasa confident of trains’ safety measures

JOHANNESBURG: The Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa) has told the Constitutional Court that stop-andsearch procedures are sufficient in ensuring the safety of passengers using its trains.

It added that it could not afford to pay for security guards to patrol all trains.

This emerged yesterday when the court heard Irvine Mashongwa’s application for leave to appeal a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling which found that Prasa did not have to pay for damages he suffered after he was thrown out of a moving train.

Mashongwa’s leg was amputated in 2011 after he was robbed and assaulted by three men, who then threw him out of a moving train in Pretoria.

In his heads of argument, Mashongwa maintained that the SCA did not apply the correct constitutional standard and “the judgment will render it almost impossible for commuters to hold Prasa accountable”.

His lawyer, Gilbert Marcus, pointed out that had there been one or more security personnel patrolling the train, Mashongwa’s injuries may have been avoided.

“The absence of guards is in and of itself a negligent omission which is causally connected to the attack which occurred,” he said.

“The evidence is that throughout the country, no security guards are deployed on trains at all.”

Running a train with its doors open was also unacceptable, Marcus said.

Mashongwa had testified in the high court that the train door had remained open throughout his commute. His evidence was undisputed.

But Prasa’s lawyer Jaap Cilliers said the agency had sufficient measures in place to ensure passenger safety.

“Trains were stopped and searched at random between stations by security officials and the police. Prasa does it on a daily basis.

“If it employ guards on trains effectively, it would cost them billions of rand.”

Justice Johann van der Westhuizen then said: “So, you’re saying it’s not negligent or wrong to not have a single guard on the train?”

“Yes,” Cilliers responded.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng pointed out that as an organ of the state, Prasa had a constitutional and legal obligation to secure the commuters using its trains.

In response to another question by Van der Westhuizen as to whether the open train doors issue was negligent or wrongful, Cilliers rejected Mashongwa’s evidence, saying its credibility had to be examined.

“I’m convinced the doors were not open. If you decide on the credibility issue, I’m certain I can persuade you the doors were closed. The objective evidence is that the train doors properly operated before the incident and properly operated after the incident.”

Judgment was reserved.