
This matter involved a series of battles which culminated with a successful appeal to the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal, which unanimously found in the plaintiff / appellant’s favour. A gardener in the employ of Spier wine estate at the time of his unfortunate incident, Mr Rautini boarded a train to work on 19 November 2011 and at some point along the route, was thrown out of the open train doors by a gang of men. He sustained serious injuries as a result.
The trial court found in Mr Rautini’s favour after a lengthy trial, however, on appeal to the Full Bench of the Western Cape High Court, PRASA argued that the trial court should have relied on annotations in the medical and ambulance reports, which recorded inter alia that the plaintiff had “fallen” from the moving train. The Full Bench rejected the plaintiff’s uncontroverted account of the circumstances of the incident, and instead accepted that the contents of the medical records were credible, acceptable and accordingly admissible, and upheld PRASA’s appeal and dismissed the claim.
Special leave to appeal to the SCA was sought on Mr Rautini’s behalf, and the court noted that the case raised an important issue regarding the admissibility of the contents of discovered documents, without the author having to testify about the correctness of the contents thereof. The court further held that the contents of the various hospital and medical records constituted hearsay evidence, which is prima facie inadmissible, and that the Full Bench of the Western Cape High Court had materially misdirected itself when it had relied on this hearsay evidence in the absence of an application by PRASA for the admission thereof in terms of s3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. It was further significant that the plaintiff had never been cross-examined on what he may or may not have told the medical personnel at the various hospitals where he received treatment, and hence was denied the opportunity to respond to PRASA’s hypothesis that he had in fact jumped from the moving train as a result of being late for work. This constituted a further material misdirection by the previous appeal court, and the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Mr Rautini’s appeal, finding in his favour.
For a copy of the full judgment click here.