As An Organ Of State, PRASA, Has An Obligation To Protect Passengers' Bodily Integrity

Published date18 August 2020
Subject MatterGovernment, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Rail, Road & Cycling, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
Law FirmAdams & Adams
AuthorMs Raznae Narayanasami

Metrorail is the largest operator of commuter rail services in South Africa, with millions of individuals commuting every day. It is also a division of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), a state-owned enterprise which is responsible for most passenger rail services in South Africa.

The rail service providers like PRASA and Metrorail are legally required to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of passengers, on trains, stations and on its premises. Where negligence, or failure to implement reasonable safety measures, results in passengers being injured, these rail service providers may be held liable for damages. In a remarkable constitutional court judgement, as discussed below, this duty was further reinforced by the specific constitutional obligation to protect passengers' bodily integrity that rests on PRASA as an organ of state.

In Mashongwa v PRASA (CCT03/15) [2015] ZACC 36 2016 (2) BCLR 204 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC) (26 November 2015)

The applicant, Mr Mashongwa, was a passenger in 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. Three unarmed men entered from the adjacent coach, robbed and assaulted Mr Mashongwa and threw him out of the moving train. As a result, he sustained serious injuries and his left leg was amputated.

Mr Mashongwa instituted action against PRASA in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. In this case, it was alleged by Mashongwa, that PRASA -

  • failed to ensure that there were security guards on the train; and
  • allowed the train to travel with the train doors open.

The High Court found in favour of Mr Mashongwa and ruled that PRASA's failure to ensure that the train doors were closed and to ensure that there was a security guard present on the train constituted negligence, which caused Mr Mashongwa harm. However, PRASA appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which found that there were adequate security measures in place and set aside the order of the High Court.

Mr Mashongwa approached the constitutional court and challenged the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal. PRASA argued that there are reasonable measures in place to ensure the safety of commuters and that it is not under an obligation to guarantee the absolute safety of each commuter.

In a unanimous judgment written by Mogoeng CJ, the Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT