Amputee passenger loses case against Prasa after horror accident

A WOMAN who found herself on the wrong side of the railway track and who was then hit by a moving train has lost a damages claim in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which found no negligence by the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa) or its employees.

The case dates back to 2008 when Johanna Sithuse, then 21 years old, was hit by a train at Rosslyn Station in Pretoria.

She sustained serious bodily injuries and her right mid-forearm had to be amputated.

According to the SCA judgment, Sithuse argued among others that Prasa failed to ensure that security services were on duty at the train station to monitor commuter activity.

She argued that as a result she was pushed from the platform in front of the moving train.

But Prasa denied liability and claimed that the collision was caused by Sithuse's own action in unexpectedly throwing herself in front of the moving train.

Central to the case before the SCA was the platform Sithuse was on: Rosslyn Station has only two platforms for passengers, marked “platform 1” and “platform 2,” situated on each side of a single central platform.

Sithuse testified that on the day in question she was returning home from work in Daspoort, Pretoria, where she left at 1pm without permission as she was angry following a work-related dispute she had had with her supervisor.

She took a train at Daspoort Station thinking that it was travelling to Mabopane. On arrival at Winternest Station, she realised that she had taken the wrong train.

According to Sithuse, the train arrived at platform 1 at Rosslyn Station and she disembarked.

She then “crossed to platform 2 in order to take a train in the opposite direction back towards Pretoria North, where she could get off the train and catch a train heading to Mabopane”.

When a suitable train arrived and was drawing to a halt at platform 2 she was “pushed and jostled” by other commuters as a result of which she fell under the wheels of the third coach.

The evidence on behalf of Prasa contradicted her version.

Johannes Spies testified for Prasa as the train driver on duty at the time that as he approached the designated mark, he noticed a group of around 15 to 20 women standing in the shade of the overhead pedestrian bridge on platform 1.

As he looked closer, he noticed one woman emerge from the group and approach the train by crossing the yellow line safety zone.

He testified that passengers are not supposed to cross the yellow line before a train comes to a complete stop.

Spies then applied the emergency brake and at the same time sounded the train's hooter.

When he blew the hooter the woman “fell between the tracks and the train hit her”.

The SCA found that the train which collided with her was travelling away from what her intended destination was.

“The evidence adduced by Ms Sithuse to support the allegation of negligence on the part of Prasa or its employees was improbable.

“Having regard to what her intended destination was, her presence on platform 1 remained inexplicable.

“Her evidence that the incident happened on platform 2 was the only version she could offer if she wanted to say that she needed to catch a train back in the direction of Pretoria North.

“Whatever her state of mind was at the time, it was not the one she told the trial court about. I find that the incident occurred in the manner as described by Mr Spies.”