Cape oupa wins case against Prasa for train robbery injuries

A PENSIONER has been successful in his legal bid to hold the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) liable for injuries sustained after he and his wife were robbed on a Metrorail train en route to Retreat Station.

The Western Cape High Court found Prasa liable for 72-year-old Jacob Barnett’s proven or agreed damages in relation to the incident when a brick was thrown at him. 

“I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven his case and that it was the defendant’s failure to safeguard the Plaintiff whilst he was a passenger on the train, that ultimately resulted in the injuries that he suffered from the incident where the brick was thrown at him. I am unable to find that the Plaintiff could do anything to prevent the attack on him, and he was an innocent passenger,” the court found.

Barnett is claiming R100 000 for past and future medical expenses and R500 000 for general damages. This aspect of the case is to be determined at a later court date.

According to Barnett's testimony, the couple boarded a Metrorail train at Cape Town Station. Their harrowing experience began when the train made a stop at Hazeldene Station. Three unknown men, accompanied by a woman, entered the train at this stop. As the train proceeded, an attempted robbery ensued. One of the assailants brandished a knife, leading to a scuffle that left the husband injured with a wound to his hand. Subsequent to the struggle, the attackers managed to snatch his wife’s handbag before fleeing at Crawford Station, prompting the couple to seek assistance on the platform.

“As the train pulled into Crawford Station, the three males left the train, and the (husband) out of fear and panic ran out of the train onto the platform to find a security office or someone in charge to get assistance. (He) stated that he was aware that there was someone that was a security or in charge and he was described as the one with the whistle,” court papers read. 

“The perpetrators were then attacked by other passersby on the platform at Crawford Station, when (news) that they had attacked a passenger had spread. The Plaintiff also informed the court that he was able to find his wife’s bag, which was dropped in another section of the train, and which he believed the perpetrators dropped whilst they were exiting the train. Before the train pulled out of Crawford Station, a woman, who was on the platform, threw a brick toward the Plaintiff, into the open train doors, which hit him on his nasal bone, causing him immediate pain, followed by extensive bleeding.”

Barnett argued that Prasa had failed in its duty of care, in that they failed to provide adequate, if not any security on the train. The absence of adequate security measures such as ticket checks, security guards, surveillance cameras, and panic buttons, directly contributed to the traumatic incident, the man maintained. 

He suffered various injuries, including emotional shock, trauma, soft tissue swelling in his face, and a head injury. He had to receive hospital care, and he also suffered from pain and discomfort. 

Prasa’s defence and plea amounted to a bare denial, court papers read. 

“(Prasa) called no witnesses, and this is indicative of the fact that there is no one to testify to the version that has been pleaded by the Defendant. This was consistent with its plea being a bare denial, as realistically, the Defendant had not a single shred of evidence to deal with any of the plaintiff’s allegations. If the Defendant had cameras installed it may have had some information, if it had guards, there may have been a report, but this was all glaringly absent.  

The court held that Prasa had not shown that it had taken any steps to provide security, thus exposing commuters to harm. 

Prasa did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.