Prasa held liable for disability after woman dragged from moving train during robbery

Prasa has been held fully liable after a woman was dragged from a moving train while doors were open.

The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town has held the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) fully liable for damages suffered by a commuter who was dragged and thrown from a moving train during a violent robbery 15 years ago.

Acting Judge Yake on 26 August 2026, the court ruled that Prasa breached its public legal duty by allowing carriage doors to remain open while the train was in motion, exposing rail users to severe foreseeable harm.

The incident occurred in May 2011 while Aisha Barnabas was travelling on a Prasa-operated train from Cape Town to Mitchell's Plain via Nyanga.

Due to a lack of seating, Barnabas was forced to stand in the middle of the carriage. While standing, a group of approximately five men began robbing passengers. As terrified commuters panicked and moved toward the back of the carriage, Barnabas was pushed toward the open doorway.

One of the robbers grabbed her handbag from her arm and leapt out of the moving train, grabbing her jacket in the process. Barnabas was dragged out through the open door, falling onto the adjacent railway tracks .

She sustained severe injuries, including a lacerated leg, a head laceration accompanied by a haemorrhagic contusion, and a dislocated shoulder. The incident left her disabled and facing significant loss of income and amenities of life.

Barnabas argued that the rail operator had failed to exercise reasonable care by permitting the train to travel with its doors open, exposing passengers to an obvious and foreseeable danger.

Prasa disputed liability, arguing that it had not acted negligently and challenging aspects of Barnabas' claim, including issues surrounding her travel on the train.

However, the court rejected those arguments, holding that Prasa owes passengers a public legal duty to implement reasonable security measures to safeguard commuters from harm.

Judge Yake found that allowing the train to operate with open doors amounted to negligence because it significantly increased the risk of passengers being injured during criminal incidents or other disturbances.

The judgment further held that the validity of a passenger's train ticket is not a prerequisite for establishing Prasa's liability where negligence has been proven.

In reaching the decision, the court emphasised that trains operating with open doors expose commuters to foreseeable dangers, particularly in circumstances where overcrowding, criminal activity or sudden disturbances occur.

The judgment reaffirmed that PRASA is required to take reasonable measures to ensure passenger safety and cannot avoid liability where failures in its operational safety contribute to injuries suffered by commuters.