/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) continues to open itself up to massive civil claims by not adhering to a Constitutional Court judgement that the passenger railway operator has a constitutional obligation to protect passengers form harm.

“An innocent 13-year-old boy who lost his life this week after falling from a moving train, would have lived if PRASA adhered to its legal duty to ensure that the doors were closed while the train was in motion.

“It is shocking, tragic and unacceptable that innocent passengers continue to lose their lives on our railway lines a year after the Constitutional Court ruled in a ground-breaking case that safeguarding the physical well-being of passengers was a central obligation of public carriers, including PRASA,” says Steve Harris, General Secretary of the United National Transport Union (UNTU).

JC van Loggerenberg, died on Wednesday morning after falling for a moving PRASA train just after it passed Luipaardsvlei Station near Krugersdorp. He was found on the railway line near the corner of Albertina Sisulu and Chamdor Roads.

Family members said he was on his way to fetch his report from school. It is alleged that the carriage was overloaded and the boy was pushed out.

JC’s death comes after the full bench of the Constitutional Court ruled on 25 November last year that PRASA had been negligent in failing to ensure that the doors of the train were closed and to hire sufficient personnel to ensure the safety of rail commuters.

Irvine van Sam Mashongwa, passenger on board a Metro Rail train, sued PRASA after he had been assaulted and lost a leg after train doors was not closed. Mashongwa was assaulted by several men, robbed of his cell phone and cash and then thrown off the train through the open doors.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng found that PRASA was negligent in not providing adequate security to prevent the assault on Mashongwa and were therefore liable for compensation claimed by Mashongwa.

The Court held that PRASA’s duty to safeguard passengers is reinforced by the specific constitutional obligation to protect passengers’ bodily integrity that rests on PRASA as an organ of state.

The Court also held that the harm caused was reasonably foreseeable and that PRASA had a legal duty to ensure that the doors were closed while the train was in motion.  It further held that Mr Mashongwa would probably not have sustained his injuries had PRASA done so.

UNTU’s legal team are preparing a similar court application against PRASA. The Union believes that PRASA’s has the same constitutional obligation to its employees as it has to passengers.

Issued by UNTU