Jet ski lawsuit dismissed

DRIVING on the country’s roads may be dangerous, but being in the water was just as hazardous for a KwaZulu-Natal man, who launched a R1.8 million lawsuit after he was hit by a speeding jet ski.

Mark Merlyn Kruger sued fellow jet ski rider Basil Thompson in two separate cases in Durban courts after he claimed he was injured during a crash on Hazelmere Dam in December 2006.

However, Kruger found himself on the losing side recently when the Pietermaritzburg High Court dismissed his lawsuit and ordered him to pay Thompson’s costs.

He claimed Thompson crashed into the side of his jet ski and he was injured and his craft damaged in the collision.

Kruger was initially awarded judgment for damages to his watercraft by magistrate S Hlatswayo in the Durban Magistrate’s Court in September 2009. It was agreed that he would be paid R18 914 – the cost of the repairs.

Three months after the judgment was handed down, Kruger sued Thompson again, for R1.8m, including R50 000 for medical expenses, R200 000 for general damages and R1.3m for future loss of income.

In a recent judgment, Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Piet Koen ruled that Kruger should have sued “once and for all” in the first case and could not bring actions to court in a piecemeal fashion.

Reckless

In his court papers, Kruger claimed the crash had been caused by Thompson’s “reckless and negligent driving”.

He said Thompson had been speeding and had failed to follow the rules on the dam.

“The defendant performed unauthorised stunts with his jet ski, including spinning close to the plaintiff [Kruger] and generally riding his jet ski in a dangerous manner.”

Thompson submitted a special plea asking that the high court dismiss Kruger’s second damages suit as it was based on the “same facts and the same cause of action against the same party”.

Judge Koen found that court action arising from one incident should be brought at the same time.

“The rationale underlying the existence of the rule and the motivation for its existence in the first place is to avoid a multiplicity of actions, possible contradictory judgments and to ensure that a defendant is not harassed by repeated legal proceedings which he has to face.

“No justification was advanced why in law, equity or fairness the plaintiff could not have pursued his claim for damages in one action.”

He upheld the special plea and dismissed Kruger’s claim with costs.