Prasa found liable after 72-year-old commuter injured in violent train attack

A passenger who was injured during an attack on a Cape Town train has succeeded in holding the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) liable for his proven damages.

Jacob Barnett, a 72-year-old retiree, sued Prasa for damages arising from an incident on a Metrorail train in November 2019. He and his wife had boarded at Cape Town Station en route to Retreat Station. When the train stopped at Hazeldene Station, three unknown men and a woman entered their carriage.

Between Athlone and Crawford, the three men began harassing the couple and followed them when they tried to move away. The men attempted to rob them, brandishing a knife, injuring Barnett’s hand and stealing his wife’s handbag.

When the train arrived at Crawford Station, the assailants fled. Barnett ran onto the platform seeking security assistance. Bystanders attacked the perpetrators and Barnett later recovered his wife’s bag inside the train.

As the train was about to depart, a woman on the platform threw a brick through the open doors, striking Barnett on the nose and causing severe bleeding.

Barnett alleged the entire incident occurred as a result of Prasa’s negligence. He approached the Western Cape High Court where he claimed R100,000 for past and future medical expenses and R500,000 for general damages.

Prasa’s defence amounted to a bare denial, the court found in its judgment delivered on Monday. Prasa even denied that Barnett was a fare-paying passenger. The only aspects it admitted were his identity and the fact that Prasa owned and operated trains travelling from Cape Town to Retreat on the date in question.

Prasa specifically denied that its employees were negligent, denied any connection between the brick thrown through the closing train door and Barnett’s injuries and even denied that a brick was thrown at all.

Barnett testified, describing how the incident unfolded. The court noted that although he was sometimes confused, his honesty was clear. He had left much of the litigation to his attorney and was candid when questioned about the pleadings.

“The plaintiff was confused at times, however, it was hard not to see his honesty and truthfulness about the incident,” according to the court papers.

The court was impressed with Barnett’s evidence and saw no reason why he would fabricate such a story.

It cannot be overlooked that the duty to prevent harm to commuters is a legitimate constitutional right that the passenger must be able to rely on.

—  Judgment

Prasa, which called no witnesses, argued instead that Barnett was unreliable and that it was unrealistic to expect three security guards in every coach — an obligation it claimed was not legally binding.

The court accepted that Barnett and his wife were confronted on the train, moved seats to avoid the aggressors, and did what they could to protect themselves. It also accepted that Barnett was genuinely afraid for their safety, given their age and the fact that they faced three men, one of whom was armed with a knife.

The court emphasised that it is not unrealistic to expect security on a public train or at stations. Barnett’s expectation to be safe on a public train operated by Prasa was reasonable, and Prasa bore a duty to take reasonable measures to ensure commuter safety, as set out in the 2004 Constitutional Court decision in Railway Commuters Action Group v Transnet t/a Metrorail.

“It cannot be overlooked that the duty to prevent harm to commuters is a legitimate constitutional right that the passenger must be able to rely on,” the judgment read.

The judgment noted that commuters — often from the less privileged economic sector, must be able to rely on this constitutional right to safety. Barnett had paid extra for a better class of ticket and reasonably believed this would provide enhanced security. Instead, “he was anything but safe.”

The court criticised Prasa for selling more expensive tickets without providing the benefits associated with them. There was no ticket checking on the train, which allowed the perpetrators to board and attack the couple.

Prasa also criticised Barnett for going to hospital before reporting the matter to police. The court described this criticism as “astonishing”, noting that Barnett testified, without reason for the court to doubt him, that police refused to open a docket because he could not identify the perpetrators.

The court noted this was not an uncommon occurrence and that the police were obligated to open and investigate the case.

The court further observed that Prasa itself could not investigate the incident, having no surveillance footage or security-guard witnesses who could shed light on what happened.

“The court would have thought that the defendant would have made attempts to get an investigation under way. Instead, the defendant criticises the plaintiff.”

The court ordered that Prasa pay Barnett’s costs. It also ordered that Barnett’s claim for the damages amount be given priority.