A safe following distance isn’t just a rule in the driver’s handbook; it’s a real legal and financial safeguard.
Most of us have been guilty of tailgating, thinking we’re safe as long as we’re alert. But a recent High Court judgment shows just how costly that assumption can be – both on the road and in the courtroom.
In Wortmann v Road Accident Fund, the High Court in Kimberley dismissed a road accident claim worth R9.2 million, finding the claimant responsible for a September 2021 collision on the N12 between Kimberley and Modderrivier.
Denzil Egon Wortmann, an OUTsurance employee, was driving a Volkswagen Kombi with three passengers when he rear-ended a Toyota Land Cruiser driven by Eskom official Ivan Jacobs.
Wortmann told the court that Jacobs braked suddenly without warning or signal. Swerving to avoid impact, he said, he struck the Land Cruiser after it stopped abruptly in his path.
Jacobs gave a very different account: he had slowed to about 20km/h, indicated well in advance, and was beginning a right turn into the Eskom substation when Wortmann tried to overtake at speed and hit him from behind. Jacobs’s passenger, Gift Simphiwe Mkabiti, confirmed his version, as did the police officer who attended the scene.
Although Wortmann relied on an accident reconstruction expert, he failed to call any of his three passengers or colleagues in another Kombi travelling behind him. Judge Mpho Mamosebo noted the two accounts were “mutually irreconcilable” and weighed credibility, reliability, and probabilities.
The court found Jacobs’s evidence consistent, supported by his passenger and the conditions on the day: clear weather, good visibility, and a dry road. By contrast, Wortmann stood alone.
Even his own expert, Grobbelaar, admitted the available distances suggested Wortmann had enough space to stop if he had been driving cautiously.
Safe following distance equals legal protection
Judge Mamosebo said traffic law requires drivers to follow “no more closely than is reasonable and prudent”. In other words, you must leave enough space to stop safely, even if the car ahead brakes suddenly.
The judge said: “Had the plaintiff maintained a proper following distance, the collision would not have occurred.”
Wortmann was found negligent for speeding, failing to keep a safe distance, and overtaking improperly. His R9.2m claim against the Road Accident Fund was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs.
The takeaway: a safe following distance is your legal protection. Ignore it, and you risk not only your safety but also your claim. At 120km/h, two to three seconds (about 60 to 80 metres) is the minimum gap.
Back up your story with evidence and witnesses
The case also shows how claims succeed – or fail – on evidence. Wortmann’s downfall was relying solely on his own word.
He had three passengers but called none. The court drew an adverse inference from this silence.
His expert opinion could not outweigh direct eyewitness testimony and the probabilities, given speed and distance, undermined his claim of keeping a safe gap.
For those involved in an accident and intend to pursue a claim – whether against the RAF, your insurer, or another party – the strength of your case rests on the evidence you can present. Photographs, accident reports, and contemporaneous notes matter because memory fades and versions of events shift over time. Witnesses are even more important. An independent voice can carry more weight in court than any reconstruction, and the absence of a willing witness will almost always be noted by a judge.
Equally, claimants must remain realistic. Courts test stories against traffic laws, probabilities, and common sense. You may genuinely believe you were keeping a safe following distance, but if the physical evidence shows otherwise, the court will side with the facts. And at the heart of every claim lies the burden of proof: it is not enough to raise doubt about the other driver’s conduct; you must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that your version is more likely to be true.
Put simply, your word on its own will seldom be enough. It is the weight of corroborated, credible evidence that turns a claim into a judgment in your favour.
