GRANITE TRUCK MISHAP AT TRABABLAS INTERCHANGE: LESSONS ON LIABILITY AND MOTOR INSURANCE IN ZIMBABWE

INCIDENT OVERVIEW        

On 8 July 2025, a granite-laden truck owned by a company I am choosing to name X (Pvt) Ltd caused significant damage to Harare’s newly commissioned Trabablas Interchange when its cargo dislodged and struck key infrastructure, including guardrails and the road surface. Following the incident, the Vehicle Inspection Department (VID) impounded the vehicle and the Ministry of Transport directed the owner to pay for all repairs.

The incident sparked debate across Zimbabwe’s legal and insurance sectors. This article explores these questions through the lenses of proximate cause, liability law and insurance practice.

PROXIMATE CAUSE: WHO TRULY CAUSED THE DAMAGE?        

At the heart of any liability dispute lies the doctrine of proximate cause; the principal cause that sets the loss in motion. In this case, several triggers could be examined:

• Was the truck poorly maintained or mechanically defective?
• Did the driver act negligently (e.g., speeding or failing to inspect the load)?
• Was the granite improperly secured by a third-party loader? To mention a few

Each of these possibilities could be legally relevant but the dominant cause, not the final link in the chain, determines legal liability and insurance response.

A LEGAL LENS: PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE LAW IN TRANSPORT LIABILITY AND INSURANCE COVERAGE        

Understanding the implications of the X Ltd incident requires more than an insurance technical analysis; it demands a look through the legal lens that defines liability and policy interpretation. I have chosen three landmark cases from common law jurisdictions which offer enduring principles that can guide how such incidents are evaluated under insurance and maybe road traffic laws.

Case 1: Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918]

This case from the House of Lords remains a cornerstone in the doctrine of proximate cause. The matter involved a British ship torpedoed during World War I. Though it survived the initial attack, it sank days later while docked at a port due to severe internal damage. The insurers argued that the sinking was caused by the delay and exposure at port, rather than the torpedo itself.

The court, however, introduced the now-established principle that proximate cause is not the event nearest in time, but rather the dominant, effective and operative cause of the loss. The torpedo attack was deemed the proximate cause and the insurer was held liable.

In assessing liability, the immediate dislodgement of granite may appear to be the cause of the damage. However, under this legal doctrine, the real proximate cause could be traced to poor loading procedures, failure to secure cargo or even negligence by the driver such as harsh braking, speeding, or misjudging the curve, to mention a few. This principle shifts the focus from surface level events to the root failures, strengthening arguments for liability even in the absence of a crash or external trigger.

Case 2: Hussain v Brown (1996)

In this UK case, the defendant tried to disclaim liability after a refrigerator being transported in their vehicle fell and caused injury. The defense claimed that a third party had loaded the fridge and that they were therefore not responsible for how it was secured. The court rejected this argument holding that the vehicle owner is ultimately responsible for the safety of the load, regardless of who performed the loading. The rationale was simple: ownership and operational control of the vehicle imply a duty of care that cannot be delegated without accountability.

If X Ltd had contractors or outsourced personnel load the granite, they would still bear full responsibility for ensuring that the cargo was secure. The precedent clearly establishes that delegating operational functions does not shield vehicle owners from liability. The damage to the Trabablas Interchange therefore remains within X Ltd legal and financial responsibility, regardless of whether an in house or third party team performed the loading.

Case 3: Tudor Jones v Motor Insurers’ Bureau (2001)

This case redefined the boundaries of what constitutes a “motor accident” under insurance law. The claimant was injured after a ladder fell off a moving van. The van never collided with anything yet the falling object caused substantial injury. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) tried to avoid liability arguing that no collision or direct vehicular involvement had occurred. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that transporting unsecured items is part of the vehicle’s use and that injuries or damages caused by such items constitute motor vehicle incidents. The decision established a broad interpretation of vehicle use and reaffirmed that causation need not involve physical contact by the vehicle itself.

This ruling offers direct support to the argument that the falling granite, although not the result of a vehicle collision, was still an incident arising from the use of a motor vehicle. In the Zimbabwean context where most motor insurance policies base coverage on events “arising from the use of the vehicle” this interpretation becomes critical.

Let us now turn to insurance practice and examine which insurance policies may be relevant in this scenario.

WHICH INSURANCE POLICIES MAY APPLY?        

MOTOR INSURANCE

Motor insurance in Zimbabwe is typically structured under four main categories:

• Road Traffic Act (RTA) Cover/Third Party: The minimum compulsory cover required by law, providing liability protection for injury or death and property damage caused to third parties.
• Full Third Party Cover: Extends RTA cover limits on the same RTA terms.
• Full Third Party, Fire and Theft: Adds protection against fire and theft of the insured vehicle to the third-party cover.
• Comprehensive Cover: The broadest form of cover, including damage to the insured’s own vehicle, third-party liability and additional perils.

While comprehensive insurance is considered the most extensive form of protection, practical limitations and exclusions within policy terms may affect its applicability particularly in complex incidents involving public infrastructure damage or cargo related losses. And honestly, if you were the Insurer; would you even consider granite rock transportation an insurable risk? That stuff feels like a built-in hazard all on its own lol.

 The Scope and Limits of Comprehensive Cover

Comprehensive insurance is often viewed as the highest tier of protection, designed to cover a wide range of incidents including own vehicle damage, fire, theft, malicious damage and third-party liabilities. However, its promise of broad coverage is qualified by policy wording (I call it the bible of insurance), exclusions and the definition of what constitutes 'insured property.'

A notable legal precedent that supports the reach of comprehensive policies is the Tudor Jones v Motor Insurers’ Bureau (2001) case as discussed above. This landmark case established that the courts are willing to adopt a liberal and purposive interpretation of motor insurance policies, including those under comprehensive cover. However, this expansive view quickly collapses when insurers invoke exclusions. One such exclusion commonly found in motor insurance policies is:

“Damage caused to any viaduct, bridge, weighbridge, road or structure beneath the vehicle whether due to vibration, the weight of the vehicle, or its load is not covered.”

This exclusion fundamentally limits how far a comprehensive policy can go, especially when public infrastructure is involved. In my view, the rationale behind this wording may stem from the assumption that ZINARA fees already fund the repair and maintenance of Zimbabwe’s roads and bridges. From the insurer’s perspective, it may be inefficient or redundant to provide cover for infrastructure that is already publicly funded, it's akin to carrying coals to Newcastle or kupfeka nguo mbiri pamuviri umwe. However, from a policyholder’s perspective, this exclusion can feel like a trap particularly when they believed they were fully covered.

When Comprehensive Insurance Fails: What is the Next Step?

We can all agree that most insurance policies have limitations and typically do not cover roads or other road infrastructure. On the other hand, the government, through the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development has set a precedent regarding driver liability for damage to roads and infrastructure. So, what can an insured person whether that is you, your company, family or friend do in such situations? Let’s explore this issue together and see if we can find a solution. Here is my take, just a bit of my thinking, lol

It is important to understand the structural relationship between motor insurance products in Zimbabwe. The Road Traffic Act (RTA) cover is not optional; it is the compulsory legal minimum required for every registered vehicle operating on public roads. All other motor insurance covers Full Third-Party, Third-Party Fire and Theft and Comprehensive are essentially commercial enhancements that build upon this mandatory base.

In practical terms, every motor insurance policy issued in Zimbabwe, including comprehensive ones, embeds an RTA component. This is why all such policies attract a government levy calculated on the RTA base premium. I think even when a vehicle is comprehensively insured, insurers remain legally obligated to honor third-party claims under the RTA framework and subject to the prescribed statutory limits typically USD 2,000 for property damage.

If a comprehensive policy declines to pay whether due to narrowly defined terms or explicit exclusions; the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] steps in as a statutory fall back. This legislation ensures that basic third-party coverage applies to all registered vehicles, offering compensation for:

• Death or bodily injury
• Property damage

What makes the Road Traffic Act (RTA) particularly powerful is its broad and open ended definition of “property.” The Act does not differentiate between public and private assets; a silence that, in my view, is intentional rather than accidental. For example, when granite falls off a moving truck and damages road signs, gouges the tarmac or destroys guardrails, such damage arguably falls within the scope of what Section 23(2) (b) refers to as “any property.” I believe this wording provides a reasonable basis for an insured person to raise a legal argument in court against an insurer.

The flexibility of this language empowers courts and regulators to apply legal reasoning to context not technical exclusions. Maybe the lawmakers wanted the law to focus more on making people take responsibility than on arguing over the exact meaning of words, allowing the law to adapt in the face of evolving risks. Whether by design or luck/serendipity, this open ended definition functions as a legal wildcard and a powerful one at that.

Key case law reinforces this interpretation. In Leyland Shipping, the doctrine of proximate cause supports the idea that liability lies in the originating failure such as negligent loading not just the immediate outcome. Hussain v Brown confirms that vehicle owners cannot delegate away responsibility for what is transported under their name. And in Tudor Jones, the courts confirmed that an incident caused by falling objects from a moving vehicle even in the absence of collision still constitutes use of the vehicle and can trigger a claim.

In the Trabablas case, where a truck, trailer and granite load functioned as a single operational unit, these rulings collectively support a claim under the RTA section of the policy.

 Nowhere is the strength of the RTA more evident than in Section 26, a clause that invalidates policy conditions attempting to limit third-party liability:

“If, under a statutory policy, any liability in regard to which the statutory policy was issued arises, any condition in the statutory policy purporting to restrict such liability in any way and for any reason whatsoever shall not... be of any force or effect.”

This is not just a protective clause, it is a disruptive one. It tells insurers unequivocally, that they cannot contract their way out of statutory liability. No matter how carefully exclusions are worded, if the incident falls within the scope of the Act, the claim must be paid. This may feel controversial or even burdensome to insurers but it reflects the central premise of motor insurance as a public protection mechanism, not a private technical exercise.

However, a critical gap remains: Zimbabwe has no standardized, publicly available Third-Party policy wording formally registered with the Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC) or ICZ. In the absence of such a document, the Road Traffic Act itself becomes the de facto policy, with practitioners relying on its provisions to understand cover obligations. While some insurers issue their own versions of third-party policies, these often lack consistency and may fall short of the law’s intent.

Given that Third-Party insurance is mandatory, the lack of a transparent, uniform national policy document reinforces the argument for a centralized, government managed insurance framework. Without accessible and standardized terms, most motorists remain unaware of what their policies truly cover or exclude; a systemic risk in itself.

Centralizing Third-Party Motor Insurance: A National Imperative?

Zimbabwe is steering toward a game changing solution bringing RTA/Third party motor insurance under one centralized, government managed roof. The recent Trabablas incident is more than just a wake up call; it is proof that we need a smarter, fairer and more unified approach to how we insure our roads, our people and our public infrastructure.

Imagine a system where every driver is covered under the same rules, where policies speak the same language and where exclusions and payout limits are not hidden in fine print, are not accident related but mainly crime related. That is the strength of a centralized fund: it delivers transparent pricing, standardized coverage, and removes uncertainty when it matters most; the government can set its own rules! By aligning with other road-related funds such as ZINARA and harmonizing with Road Traffic Act (RTA) obligations, it creates a unified system where all stakeholders speak the same language and work toward shared national objectives. Models like South Africa’s Road Accident Fund and the COMESA Yellow Card Scheme have shown us what is possible. It Is not just about insurance, it is about nationwide protection, smoother claims and a system that puts the public first.

However, some observers pointed to Carrier’s Liability Insurance (CLI) and Goods In Transit, arguing that because goods (granite) were involved, the transporter’s policy should cover the loss. However, this interpretation overlooks the fundamental purpose of CLI and GIT.

CARRIER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE

Carrier’s Liability Insurance serves as a critical safeguard for professional transporters who operate in the business of moving goods on behalf of others. Its primary function is to provide cover against the legal liability a carrier may incur if goods are lost or damaged during loading, transit or unloading due to negligence; either on the part of the carrier or their employees. It is essential to note that this is not property insurance. The goods themselves are not insured under this policy; rather, what is protected is the carrier’s liability should their actions (or omissions) result in harm to those goods.

Coverage under such a policy is typically triggered when a court or legal framework finds the carrier responsible for the loss. Compensation is then calculated based on the market value of the goods at the point of acceptance or may vary depending on the policy wording. However, if the carrier is not found at fault or if the claim exceeds the defined policy limits, the insurer may not be obligated to pay. Importantly, this type of insurance does not respond to voluntary gestures of goodwill; it is strictly a legal liability instrument.

It is a common misconception that carrier’s liability insurance will cover injuries or damage caused by cargo. Most standard policies exclude liability for third party injury or property damage unless a specific extension is added. In the absence of such a clause, incidents involving public assets, environmental harm or dangerous goods typically may need to fall under the scope of specialized liability insurance.

Further, when a company engages in commercial transportation, their carrier’s liability policy must accurately reflect this in both its purpose and terms. Failure to disclose the true nature of operations or to ensure that policy terms align with business activities can result in claim denials. In this instance, the core question is whether insurance arrangements were sufficient to meet the scale and nature of the liability they now face.

Losses resulting from poor cargo securing such as shifting loads or inadequate restraints are often excluded unless they trigger a covered peril, such as a collision. Without a direct link to such a peril, insurers may decline claims related to structural damage or loss caused by falling cargo. Given the nature of the damage to the Trabablas Interchange, it is unlikely that a basic carrier’s policy would respond without specific public property extensions.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the broader responsibilities professional carrier’s shoulder. It highlights the importance of comprehensive and fit for purpose insurance coverage, particularly in contexts where public safety and infrastructure are at stake. For transport businesses operating in today’s risk sensitive environment, overlooking these exposures can lead to catastrophic financial and reputational consequences.

GOODS IN TRANSIT (GIT-) INSURANCE

GIT policies protect the cargo itself from loss or theft not any damage that cargo causes to third parties. Just like CLI, This cover is irrelevant to incidents like Trabablas unless explicitly extended for liability.

While Motor, GIT and Carrier’s Liability form the core pillars of transport insurance, the real world risk landscape does not stop there. In fact, additional covers like General Liability and regional frameworks like the COMESA Yellow Card Scheme add critical layers of protection especially across borders or in complex logistics chains. But that is a conversation for another day.

TIME TO SHIFT GEARS        

Transporting goods today is not just about moving cargo; it is navigating a complex web of legal exposure, policy gaps and public accountability. The Trabablas Interchange disaster did not just bend steel and concrete; it cracked open deep fault lines in how we define liability, interpret policy exclusions and protect our infrastructure.

Let us be clear: “comprehensive” is not always comprehensive and fine print exclusions can not be allowed to override public good. As Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act boldly reminds us; when insurers walk away, the law does not. Zimbabwe can no longer afford to treat motor insurance as a tick box requirement. It is time we reimagine it as a strategic risk management instrument for the nation; one that evolves with the realities of our roads, national activities and the scale of our losses. The future of motor insurance in Zimbabwe is not behind us, it is right in front of us, roaring like an engine. The road ahead is not just an opportunity, it’s an obligation. Let us insure it wisely! Let us insure it boldly!

If you are aware of any Zimbabwean case law involving cargo-related damage, road infrastructure claims or disputes around the “use of a vehicle” under the RTA, we want to hear from you. Your input could help build the legal road map for a more accountable and resilient transport and insurance sector.

Run the Trabablas.

Own the Morning. Wide roads, Golden sun, Pure clarity. Start strong and Breathe deep! The Interchange is yours.

WARNING:

The views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or any organization I am affiliated with. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. I encourage readers to consult with relevant experts for specific guidance. Any advice provided in this article is of a general nature and has not considered your needs and objectives