By Lavona Appanna – Associate / Mooney Ford Attorneys
Many assume that being a passenger shields them from legal liability in a motor vehicle accident. That assumption is misplaced.
A recent decision of the Western Cape High Court in Jantjies v Road Accident Fund (14489/21) [2026] ZAWCHC 90 has clarified the position. A passenger who interferes with a vehicle’s controls may, in law, be treated as the “driver” for purposes of liability.
The facts
The passenger, who was seated next to the driver, pulled the handbrake while the vehicle was travelling at approximately 60 km/h on a public road. The driver lost control and a collision followed. The court found that the passenger’s conduct was the sole cause of the accident and constituted negligence.
The legal issue
The dispute turned on whether the passenger could be regarded as a “driver” under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for purposes of compensation. Section 17(1)(a) provides compensation for loss or damage arising from the driving of a motor vehicle.¹
Section 20(1) states that a motor vehicle is deemed to be driven by the person in control of it.²
The question was therefore straightforward: did the passenger assume control of the vehicle?
The court’s reasoning
The court focused on control, not physical position in the vehicle. It held that the decisive inquiry is who controlled the collision-causing event. A person who manipulates critical controls such as a steering wheel or handbrake effectively assumes control of the vehicle. In doing so, that person can be regarded as the driver for purposes of the Act. On the facts, the passenger seized control at the critical moment and the driver was treated as an innocent third party.
The court rejected the RAF’s argument that it is not liable for collisions caused by passengers, finding that the passenger had assumed control of the vehicle and therefore fell within the statutory definition of ‘driver’ for purposes of liability.
Important qualification
The court drew a clear boundary. Not every act of passenger negligence will amount to “driving”. For example, merely obstructing a driver’s view does not equate to taking control of the vehicle. The distinction is functional control versus incidental interference.
Why this matters
This judgment sharpens three points:
- Passenger status is not a shield. Liability is not determined by where you sit.
- Control determines responsibility. Courts will interrogate who controlled the vehicle at the moment the accident occurred.
- RAF claims require closer scrutiny. Passenger conduct may now materially affect liability assessments.
Bearing in mind that every case will be decided on its own merit.
Conclusion
If you are involved in an accident, do not assume the legal position is obvious. Liability can turn on a single moment and a single act.
Getting legal advice early can materially affect the outcome of a claim, particularly where fault is disputed or unclear.
Your seatbelt will not protect you from liability, your actions behind the wheel, or even beside it, will.
Footnotes
- Section 17(1)(a), Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
- Section 20(1), Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
Photo by Wendell Fernandes on Unsplash
