THE state of South Africa's roads has sparked an outcry from members of the tourism industry, many of who have experienced a drop in tourism to areas where the roads are "virtually inaccessible" - a fact which has led a law professor to call for a test case to see whether the local, provincial and regional authorities could be held liable for damages.
The dean of the law faculty at Rhodes University, Professor Rob Midgley was reacting to several Eastern Cape tourism bodies and operators who slammed the provincial government for its "general lack of concern about the state of the roads in the Wild Coast area".
Tour bus company, Springbok Atlas told Travel Now that it had suspended most of its trips through the area, due to the "terrible state" of the roads. Driving at night had become an impossible task, said Isabella van der Merwe, Springbok Atlas's EC representative.
Executive manager for the South African Bus Operators Association (SABOA), Eric Cornelius, told Travel Now that bus accidents were certainly increasing due to the state of the roads, especially after the rain.
"The biggest danger is the fact that tyres can be severely damaged due to road conditions and the damage is quite frequently on the inside of the tyre where it can't easily be spotted," explains Cornelius.
According to him, statistics indicate that most bus accidents are due to human error (approximately 74%) and 8% can be attributed to road conditions.
"SABOA feels that the government should have a dedicated fund for roads and bridges".
He says that neither SABOA nor any other bus operators had ever sued the authorities.
"It would just be too difficult to prove a case against them".
Professor Midgley says finding local authorities responsible for wear and tear or even neglect of their infrastructure and facilities dates back to 1912 when the Johannesburg Municipality was found liable after a horse slipped on cobblestones which had worn down (Halliwell vs Johannesburg Municipality).
"There have been a number of successful instances since then."
According to him, the law states that an authority should be liable when a deteriorating situation created a new source of danger, although questions arise as to whether the danger could be foreseen and whether the authority was able to take preventative measures, also, what those precautions would cost.
Another factor to consider, says Midgley, would be to what extent adequate warning had been given to alert the public to the danger.
"One sign stating 'potholes for the next 40km' might not be deemed sufficient. This all depends on yet another set of variables, such as the size of the potholes and the extent of the deterioration."
If there is a seriously large or deep pothole, there has to be a warning specifically for that pothole, he explains.
Midgley concludes by saying that government's excuse of not having money for repair and maintenance would not be an acceptable reason for not paying compensation.
(Adele Mackenzie)
