The court had to grapple with the issue of whether a forklift which fell on a man’s head in a public parking lot indeed constituted a motor vehicle, as envisaged in the Road Accident Fund Act.
This was after Julian Strydom turned to the Mpumalanga division of the high court, sitting in Middelburg, to claim damages against the RAF.
Strydom was a pedestrian who got injured when the load of the forklift fell on him in a parking lot of a business premises, which constitutes a public road.
The fund disputed that the Hangcha 5t Series forklift in question is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the RAF Act.
The parties agreed that the forklift in question is propelled by a diesel combustion engine and that the accident occurred on a public road and/or public parking area. What they don’t agree on is whether the forklift is designed for propulsion.
Concerning this aspect, Strydom contended that the forklift truck was designed for propulsion on a road.
He argued that based on its basic design, features, and equipment as per the operation and maintenance manual, the vehicle is designed, or at least adapted, for propulsion on a public road.
This issue is not novel, Judge Mpopelele Langa remarked. He said our courts have in the past on many occasions grappled with the issue of whether a forklift is similar to a motor vehicle.
He referred to a previous case where the forklift in question had no lights, indicators, or speedometer and brake lights. It also operated at very low speed, and its hoist obstructed the driver’s view. It was concluded in that case that the forklift was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act.
In a recent judgment by the Western Cape, the court was also called upon to determine the similar issue of whether the forklift was a motor vehicle for the purposes of the RAF Act.
That forklift - a Toyota 8 series 8FD25 - had an improved design and a steering wheel similar to a bus. Yet it was also found not to be a vehicle as envisaged in the Act, as the court reasoned that although they can travel on roads, their purpose is not to travel up and down the road.
In the present case, Strydom relied on the manufacturer's operation manual in its submission that the Hangcha forklift has additional features specifically making it suitable for travelling on a road.
The features referred to are many and include the instrument cluster with hour meter, water temperature gauge, fuel gauge, engine malfunction detect switch, and turn indicators. It also has an accelerator pedal and a parking brake.
But the judge said this evidence does not show that the forklift is able to be operated on a public road. The operating manual also does not explicitly state that the forklift may be operated on a public road.
The general rule is particular about the work road surface on which the forklift is to be operated. It specifically requires that this forklift be operated on a flat cement or blacktop surface.
Judge Langa added that it is clear that the forklift has to be operated on particular road surfaces and not any road surface.
“The instructions from the manual, in my view, are not consistent with the assertion that the forklift can be operated on just any road or public road or street for that matter,” the judge said.
He also pointed out that the operation manual warned against applying brakes suddenly as that may cause the forklift to capsize.
“This means that should this forklift find itself in a situation where it has to make an emergency stop, as almost always happens on streets and public roads, it is more than likely to cause an accident and endanger other road users.”
Judge Langa added that given the traffic conditions on the roads, it should be accepted that all vehicles operating on the public roads should be able to execute a “dead brake” manoeuvre at any time should that be necessary.
Any vehicle which is not designed to make a sudden stop without causing an accident is not safe for use on the road, he said in turning down the claim.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za