Western Cape High Court deepens split on PRASA's duty of care to ticketless commuters

The plaintiff was injured when she fell from a moving Metrorail train through an open door at Esplanade Station on 25 September 2014. PRASA denied liability, contending inter alia that the plaintiff could not prove she held a valid train ticket and therefore could not establish a duty of care. PRASA also denied that the train had travelled with open doors.

The court held: The court held PRASA liable. It found on the probabilities that the plaintiff was a lawful passenger and that the train travelled with open doors, which constitutes negligence. Critically, the court held that the absence of a valid ticket is not a sine qua non for liability: PRASA's constitutional duty under section 12 of the Constitution and its delictual duty of care exist independently of contractual entitlement. The court expressly declined to follow Bhiya (noting that leave to appeal to the SCA had been granted in that matter) and aligned itself with Barnabas, Marbe, and MBM. The court also found that PRASA failed to lead any evidence of reasonable safety measures to rebut the prima facie case of negligence.

Legal impact: This judgment deepens the inter-court split on the ticket requirement for PRASA liability. It reinforces the line of authority (Barnabas, Marbe, MBM) holding that PRASA cannot defeat a delictual claim simply because the claimant cannot produce a ticket years after the incident. Until the SCA resolves the split (Bhiya is on appeal), practitioners in the Western Cape can rely on this authority. The ruling also confirms that operating older trains lacking door-warning systems with open doors is per se negligent, and that PRASA bears an evidential burden to show what reasonable safety measures were in place once a prima facie case is established.