About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPJHC 419
|
|
O v Road Accident Fund (20976/2014) [2018] ZAGPJHC 419 (31 May 2018)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 20976/2014
In
the matter between:
In
the matter between:
O
P
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MOOSA
AJ
:
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Plaintiff herein
is O P, an adult male with full legal capacity of […]
Zone […], Pimville, Soweto who
claims damages in terms of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
for personal injuries sustained in
a motor vehicle collision on 13 June 2009 at approximately 01h10, at
or near Mabalane Street,
Senaone, Soweto.
[2]
The merits have been conceded 75% (seventy five percent) in favour of
the plaintiff and the only issue for determination is
the quantum of
the plaintiff’s damages with specific reference to past and
future loss of earnings.
[3]
It is common cause that the plaintiff was born on 24 December 1984
and that at the time of the collision he was 24 years of
age.
[4]
Certain heads of damages have been agreed upon by the parties:
(a)
Estimated future
hospital, medical and related expenses
:
The
defendant will furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)(a)
of the Road accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
(b)
General damages
for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, disablement and
disfigurement
:
The
issue of serious injuries is referred for decision by the Health
Professions Council of South Africa (“HSPCA”).
[5] Accordingly, the only
head of damages for determination is the plaintiff’s past and
future loss of income and the contingencies
to be applied in respect
of the injured and uninjured scenarios.
COMMON
CAUSE
[6] The plaintiff was
involved in a motor vehicle accident on 13 June 2009 and suffered the
following injuries as a result of the
collision:
(a) A
severe traumatic brain injury.
(b) A fracture of the
junction of the proximal and middle third of the left femur.
(c)
Fractures of the necks of the first, second, third and fourth
metatarsals of the right foot.
[7] As a result of the
injuries and the
sequelae
thereto the Plaintiff developed:
(a) Valgus deformities of
the right hallux of the second, third and fourth toes as a result of
the malunions of his tarsal fractures.
(b) Headaches.
(c) Fatigue.
(d) Severe anxiety and
stress.
(e) Neuropsychological
deficits associated with a left frontal lobe injury, including
deficits with:
(i)
attention;
(ii)
concentration;
(iii)
mental tracking;
(iv)
reduced psychomotor speed;
(v)
information processing ability;
(vi)
numerical and verbal reasoning;
(vii)
planning.
(f) Changes in mood
exacerbated by pain, discomfort and reduced mobility;
(g) Dizziness and loss of
balance;
(h) Difficulty walking
and running;
(i) Problems driving long
distances;
(j) Increased pain in
inclement weather;
(k) Difficulty performing
sexually;
(l)
Epilepsy.
[8]
The plaintiff managed to complete Grade 12 and an N6 level
diploma/certificate in public business management. At the time of
the
collision the plaintiff was employed as a manager at Don’t
Waste Services, in a permanent position earning a basic salary
of R
14 000.00 (fourteen thousand rand) per month.
[9]
The injuries sustained by the plaintiff caused him to suffer a loss
of earning capacity.
[10]
The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for 75% (seventy
five percent) of the plaintiff’s damages.
[11]
The joint minutes between the opposing experts were admitted in so
far as there was agreement therein.
[12] The unopposed
reports of the plaintiff were admitted in respect of the facts and
opinions contained therein.
EVIDENCE
LED
[13]
In addition to the expert reports that were handed in by agreement,
the plaintiff called only one witness to testify. Dr L
Badenhorst
(“Badenhorst”), an Industrial psychologist testified that
she has been practicing and preparing medico legal
reports since
1992. She testified that she completed a psycho-legal evaluation in
order to assess the effect of the accident and
it’s sequelae on
current and future employability and earning potential of the
plaintiff. Her report contained information
obtained from an
interview with the plaintiff, collateral information and all medical
reports available.
[14] She confirmed the
contents of her report and testified, inter alia, as follows:
a).
The plaintiff had obtained Grade 12, NQF5 and NQF6 qualifications.
However, he could not produce the documentation regarding
such
qualifications and had difficulty in remembering dates.
b). He
was permanently employed at Don’t Waste Services (DWS) as a
manager and earned R 14 000,00 per month and had made good
progress
in terms of his career and was earning a good salary.
c).
The plaintiff would have progressed to a career ceiling with training
at the Patterson C5/D1 level at age 45 and thereafter
would receive
only inflationary increases until his retirement at age 65.
d). As
a result of the accident at the age of 24 years, the plaintiff lost
his employment at DWS in 2010 and thereafter obtained
sympathetic
employment as a doctor’s assistant earning R 63, 347.00 (sixty
three thousand three hundred and forty seven rand)
per annum, and
will only receive inflationary increases up until retirement age of
65.
e).
She confirmed that there was no agreement on the plaintiff’s
pre-morbid state as set out in the joint minute (Bundle A).
f).
The plaintiff had to resign from his place of employment due to the
injuries he suffered, as a result of the accident. Further,
that he
would have great difficulty in obtaining new employment in the event
of him losing his current employment.
[15]
It is noteworthy to mention that counsel for the defendant did not
challenge the evidence and opinions expressed by this witness
during
her cross examination.
[16]
The plaintiff closed his case and the matter was postponed in order
to allow the defendant’s counsel an opportunity to
peruse the
report, consult with it’s own witness and to complete
calculations.
[17]
Upon resumption the defendant’s counsel handed in the
assessment of compensation as Exhibit E, the contents and
calculations
therein, which the plaintiff’s counsel accepted.
[18] Save for the expert
reports, the defendant had no witnesses to call and accordingly the
case for the defendant was closed.
EVALUATION
[19]
The general approach of assessing damages for loss of earnings have
been restated in the matters of
Goldie
v City Council of Johannesburg
[1]
and
Southern
Insurance Association v Bailie NO
[2]
.
[20] Nicholas JA in
Southern Insurance Association v Bailie
(supra) at 113 F –
114A stated as follows: ‘
Any enquiry into damages for loss
of earning capacity is of its nature speculative, because it involves
a prediction as to the future,
without the benefit of crystal balls,
soothsayers, augurs or oracles. All that the court can do is to make
an estimate, which is
often a very rough estimate, of the present
value of the loss. It has open to it two possible approaches. One is
for the Judge
to make a round estimate of an amount which seems to
him to be fair and reasonable. That is entirely a matter of
guesswork, a blind
plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to
make an assessment, by way of mathematical calculations, on the basis
of assumptions
resting on the evidence. The validity of this approach
depends of course upon the soundness of the assumptions, and these
may vary
from the strongly probable to the speculative.
It
is manifest that either approach involves guesswork to a greater or
lesser extent. But the Court cannot for this reason adopt
a non
possumus attitude and make no award…’.
[21]
In the aforementioned matter, the court held that where it has before
it material on which an actuarial calculation can be
made, the
actuarial approach is preferable, because the actuarial approach has
the advantage of an attempt to ascertain the value
of a loss of
earnings on a logical and informed basis as opposed to a robust
approach or an educated guess.
[22]
In the unreported case of
Mashaba
v Road Accident Fund
[3]
,
Prinsloo J, referring to the
Bailie
case
above held among others that where career and income details are
available, the actuarial calculation approach is more appropriate
and
a court must primarily be guided by the actuarial approach, which
deals with loss of income or earnings before applying the
robust
approach, which normally caters for loss of earning capacity. This,
so said the learned judge, would help the court to ensure
that the
compensation assessed and awarded to the plaintiff is as close as
possible to the actual facts relied upon.
[23]
For the plaintiff to succeed in a claim for loss of earnings, he is
required to provide a factual basis that allows for an
actuarial
calculation. This is a process designed to assess
actuarial/mathematical calculations on the basis of the evidence as
well as over-all assumptions vesting or depending on such evidence.
This approach is known as the actuarial approach.
[24] The actuarial
approach seeks to determine the loss of earnings as realistically as
possible to what may be the plaintiff’s
actual losses. This
approach comprises of:
(a) providing a factual
basis upon which the loss of earnings is to be calculated and only
then;
(b) by
applying appropriate contingency deductions.
[25]
As a rule of practice a plaintiff need not be burdened with an undue
load of providing such a basis strictly. A plaintiff merely
needs to
demonstrate that his preferred and given scenario is more probable
than another. A 50 percent +1 (fifty percent plus one)
likelihood
constitutes a probability.
[26]
It is well established practice that where the plaintiff suffers a
permanent impairment of earning capacity, the proper and
effective
method of assessing past and future loss of earnings is as follows:
(a) To
calculate the present value of the income which the plaintiff would
have earned but for the injuries and consequent liability;
(b) To
calculate the present value of the plaintiff’s estimated
income, if any, having regard to the disability;
(c) To
adjust the figures obtained in the light of all the relevant factors
and evidence obtained and by applying contingencies;
(d) To
subtract the figure contained under (b) from that obtained under
(a).
[4]
[27]
The plaintiff’s probable career progression “
but
for”
the collision was chartered
by the medico-legal report of Badenhorst, the plaintiff’s
industrial psychologist, who reported
that at the time of the
accident, the plaintiff was employed as a manager at DWS in a
permanent position earning R 14 000,00 (fourteen
thousand rand) and a
total package of R 20 000,00 (twenty thousand rand) per month. His
earnings at that stage fell around the
median B3 on the Paterson job
grade level (median basic salary). But for the accident, the
plaintiff would have seen progression
every four to six years to
reach a career and earning ceiling at the Patterson C5/D1 level at
age 45. Further, that it was likely
that he would have remained
earning at that level bar annual inflationary adjustments, until he
would have reached expected retirement
age of 65.
On the other hand the
defendant’s industrial psychologist, Dr M C Kgosana reported
that the plaintiff would have probably
stayed in the same level of
work until normal retirement age. His earnings were likely to
progress to Patterson level B4 by the
age of 45 years. From the age
of 46, his earnings would have stabilised and would have earned only
additional inflationary increases
until retirement age. He would have
retired at the age of 60 – 65, depending on the policy of the
employer and his health.
[28]
No evidence was led disputing the fact that the plaintiff was a
healthy person prior to the accident and did not suffer from
any
pre-existing neurological, orthopedic or psychological conditions or
pathology which could or would hinder him in his climb
up the
corporate ladder.
[29]
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s probable career progression
“
having regard”
to
the accident has been compromised, when regard is had to the expert
reports filed and used by mutual consent and agreement. Having
regard
to the accident the plaintiff lost his employment at DWS in 2010 and
thereafter obtained employment earning R 63 247.00
(sixty three
thousand two hundred and forty seven rands only) as a doctors
assistant and will only receive inflationary increases
up until
retirement age of 65.
[30]
According to Dr C E Barlin the orthopaedic surgeon -
“
Mr
O suffered a fracture of the junction of the proximal and middle
thirds of the left femur; and fractures of the necks of the
1
st
,
2
nd
,
3
rd
and 4
th
metatarsals of the right foot. The plaintiff has developed valgus
deformities of the right hallux 2
nd
,
3
rd
and 4
th
toes as a result of mal-unions of his tarsal fractures and that these
require surgical correction. He requires the removal of the
femoral
intra medullary-locking nail. His life expectancy has not been
affected by his injuries. He is employable in a sedentary
administrative post only”.
Both
Dr’s Bardin and Bogatsu are in agreement regarding the injuries
sustained and the fact that the plaintiff requires the
removal of the
femoral intra medullary-locking nail. However, Dr Bogatsu, the
defendant’s expert reports that he is of the
opinion that the
injuries sustained have not affected the plaintiff’s
employability. Further, that the
sequelae
of the plaintiff’s orthopaedic
injuries have not resulted in significant losses of learning
capacity, employment capacity,
amenities, independence and enjoyment
of life.
[31]
According to the Clinical Psychologist, Mr Chris Simpson –
“
Mr
O reported fluctuation in his level of alertness in the immediate
aftermath of the accident with intermittent awareness of events,
which would suggest the presence of a concussive head injury. The
results of the neuropsychological assessment indicate a specific
pattern of difficulties with left frontal lobe injury. These
difficulties include deficits in attention, concentration and mental
tracking; reduced psychomotor speed and information processing
ability; and problems in memory, numerical and verbal reasoning,
planning and in inhibiting behaviour. He also reported changes in
mood and behaviour, which are exacerbated by pain, discomfort
and
reduced mobility. Based on the above indicators, Mr O may have
sustained a mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. In light
of the
findings of the neuropsychological findings, it is evident that Mr O
is suffering from disabling long term effects based
on his
involvement in the accident as confirmed on neuropsychological
testing. He has numerous subjective neuro-cognitive, physical,
vegetative and neuro-psychiatric complaints.
The
writer is of the opinion that as a result of the mild to moderate
traumatic brain injury with focal effects to the frontal lobe,
he has
subtle limitations and mild deficits, in intellect, daily life,
decision making ability, interpersonal, social and occupational
functioning. He also suffers from features of depression. The
limitations may cause problems in ability to adequately fulfill his
employment role and he will have problems in focusing and maintaining
his attention, in recalling information, in planning and
in reasoning
adequately. He is likely to require some supervision and assistance
in the workplace and will be experienced as significantly
slowed,
forgetful and unable to solve complex problems or react to sudden and
unpredictable situations”.
It
is noteworthy to mention that the Defendant did not file any report
from a clinical psychologist and hence the evidence of Mr
Simpson
stands unchallenged.
[32]
According to the General Practitioner, Dr D E Mashigo –
“
The
impairment rating is 10% W.P.I (whole person impairment). The
clinical assessment is consistent with serious injury as a result
of
a motor vehicle accident. Mr O is at maximum MMI (maximum medical
improvement). These are limitations in activities of daily
living and
significant life changing
sequelae
.
Final assessment is that Mr O has serious long term impairment as a
result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident of
13,2009”.
The
evidence of this witness stands unchallenged, as there was no other
evidence from the Defendant to counter the opinion and findings
of Dr
Mashigo.
[33]
According to the Neurosurgeon, Prof S Mokgokong –
“
No
neurophysical disabilities were detected on examination. There were
fairly serious neuropsychological problems on the day of
the
interview. He had memory problems, behaviour and emotional problems.
Chris Sampson noted numerous neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric
sequalae
.
He is getting epileptic convulsions particularly at night. They need
to be treated. Treatment for epileptic attacks should resume.
Other
experts’ recommendations should be heeded as well. As it is now
over 9 (nine) years since the accident occurred, it
would be
unrealistic to expect further spontaneous recovery. He has long
reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). The accident
and its
effects have not directly altered his pre-morbid longevity. Amenities
of normal living were lost during the hospitalization.
Many will be
lost permanently because of the
sequelae
of the accident, including the TBI effects”.
Prof
Mokgogong in concluding his report submits that it would be fair to
award adequate compensation for the damages incurred as
a result of
the injuries sustained in the accident. General damages will need to
be awarded because of largely the effects of the
fairly severe TBI.
Epilepsy, which has as yet not been put on chronic treatment,
continue to cause higher mental functions deteriorations
with each
attack. It is noteworthy to mention that the opinion and findings of
Prof Mokgokong have not been challenged by the defendant.
[34]
According to the Occupational Therapist, Ms Melta Siweya –
“
Residual
Work Capacity
: Now that the accident
has occurred, Mr O demonstrated residual physical ability to perform
work setting light physical demands
with limited exposure to
extensive mobility requirements such as prolonged standing, walking
and climbing stairs and limited tolerance
to assume dynamic positions
such as crouching, squatting and kneeling. His occupation as a
doctor’s assistant set light physical
demands and requires long
distance driving. Driving requires seated position, adequate upper
limb and hand function for gear manipulation
and control of steering
wheel as well as functional ability of the lower limbs for pedal
operation. The writer recommends that
Mr O continue with his current
job. However, note should be made that he is not able to drive long
distances without aggravating
pain in his left thigh and right foot,
thus reduced efficiency can be expected. The writer recommends
reasonable accomodations
(sic) of taking rest breaks while driving.
Due to the limited right ankle movement and the deformities in the
right foot, Mr O
is expected to experience pain when engaging the
foot pedals. It is accepted that B.P.O prolonged time spent driving
and on cold
days has the potential to exacerbate the pain and fatigue
in his right foot and left thigh and consequently reduce his level of
comfort. This will influence his productivity and should it not be
dealt with accordingly; it will negatively affect his vocational
longevity”.
“
Expected
outcome
: Should he successfully access
the recommended treatment and rehabilitation, his prospects may
improve in the future to the extent
that his efficiency and comfort
in driving tasks would be improved and that he may be able to perform
work of medium demand. However,
should he not be able to access to
the treatment his vocational prospects are likely to remain
unchanged. The writer is of the
opinion that it is unlikely that he
will be able to perform work of heavy or very heavy demand
classification in the future. He
demonstrated reduced psychomotor
speed and circumstantially as well as performed below the expected
norm under the ability to follow
verbal instruction. Mr Sampson noted
that the limitations the claimant present with may cause problems in
ability to adequately
fulfill his employment role and he will have
problems focusing and maintaining his attention, in recalling
information, in planning
and in reasoning adequately. He is likely to
require some supervision and assistance in the workplace and will be
experienced as
significantly slowed, forgetful and unable to solve
complex problems or react to sudden and unpredictable situations.
Psychosocially,
he noted that he is easily angered and he has become
impatient since the accident. This will negatively affect Mr O’s
competence
in employment and assuming normal relation at work, his
behaviour will manifest as poor tolerate behaviours in the workplace.
The
reported emotional challenges will lead to personal and social
interaction challenges that will cause more conflict at work. Such
will result in problems sustain employment and escalate vulnerability
for dismissals. This behaviour will limit his chances of
sustain
employment in his pre-accident occupation”.
“
Loss
of Amenities
”: Approximately 8
years post-accident Mr O still experiences persistent pain on the
lower back, left thigh and right foot
and right ankle”.
Both
Ms Siweya and the defendant’s occupational therapist, Ms M
Magoele agree that the accident has had an adverse effect
on the
plaintiff’s overall enjoyment of life and that he should be
compensated accordingly. Both experts agree that the plaintiff
is
still suited to perform his job as a doctor’s assistant,
however with pain and discomfort on the left thigh and right
foot and
ankle due to the required prolonged driving and in cold weather.
[35] Having carefully
appraised the testimony of Dr Badenhorst and the reports provided by
the other experts and in light of the
above when one looks at the
“
having regard to”
scenario, the plaintiff is
unlikely to realise his pre-morbid career and earning potential and
is likely to factually lose or suffer
loss of earnings over his
entire career.
CONTINGENCIES
[36] Contingency
deductions allow for the possibility that the plaintiff may have less
than normal expectations of life and that
he may experience periods
of unemployment by reason of incapacity due to illness, accident or
labour unrest or even general economic
conditions.
Compare:
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual
Fire & General Insurance Co
1980 (3) SA 105
(A) 114 - 115
[37]
The underlying rationale is that contingencies allow for general
hazards of life such as periods of general unemployment, possible
loss of earnings due to illness, savings in relation to travel to and
from work now that the accident has somewhat incapacitated
or
impaired him as well as the risk of future retrenchment. The general
vicissitudes of life are taken into consideration when
contingencies
are considered.
[38]
Both favourable and adverse contingencies must be taken into account.
Nicholas JA held among others in the Bailie case (
supra)
at 117 C – D, that: “
The
generalisation that there must be a ‘scaling down’ for
contingencies seems mistaken. All ‘contingencies’
are not
adverse and all ‘vicissitudes’ are not harmful. A
particular plaintiff might have had prospects or chances
of
advancement and increasingly remunerative employment. Why count the
buffets and ignore the rewards of fortune.”
[39] The assessment of
contingencies is largely arbitrary and will depend on the trial
judge’s impression of the case.
ACTUARIAL
CALCULATIONS
[40] At the hearing of
this matter the actuarial reports of Munro Forensic Consultants and
Gerard Jacobson Consulting Actuaries
were furnished, in order to
estimate the capital value of the potential loss of income suffered
by the plaintiff. Subsequently,
further reports were requested by
this court that were to accord with the fact that the defendant will
be liable for 75% of all
the claimant’s losses, as a
consequence of the accident. The actuaries were further instructed to
apply the following contingencies
based upon my findings:
·
Uninjured: 5% and 30% on past and future
incomes;
·
Injured: 5 % and 20 % on past and future
incomes.
[41] Upon a perusal of
the updated reports received by this court it is clear that only
Munro Consultants have given credence to
the instructions of this
court in it’s calculations. In the circumstances, I am inclined
to accept the actuarial report from
Munro Consultants for the
following reasons:
(a) The viva voce
evidence of Badenhorst in respect of the fact that the plaintiff
would have reached his career ceiling of C5/D1
at age 45 and that he
would receive only inflationary increases until age 65 stands
unchallenged. There is absolutely no support
for contention that the
plaintiff would only reach Patterson Scale B4;
(b) The report from Munro
Consultants has duly taken into account that the defendant is liable
for 75% of the plaintiff’s
losses as a result of the accident;
(c) The correct
contingencies have been applied as per the instructions of this
court.
FINDINGS
- PAST AND FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS
[42]
I find that the plaintiff’s pre-accident career would have
developed and reached a career ceiling of C5/D1 at age 45
and that he
would have received inflationary increases until the age of 65.
[43]
In the circumstances, I believe that a 5 % contingency applied to the
past loss is appropriate and a 30 % contingency in respect
of the
future loss of earnings.
[44]
Now that the accident has happened, and based upon the evidence
before me, it is fair and equitable to accept that the plaintiff
suffered a reduction in his earning capacity and that his current
earnings projected with inflationary increases to age 65 would
represent a fair projection of his residual earning capacity. In the
circumstances, I believe that a contingency of 5 % in respect
of past
loss and 20% in respect of future loss would be appropriate.
[45] I have duly perused
the updated actuarial report of Munro Forensic Actuaries based on my
above finding and take cognisance
of the calculations in respect of
the capital value of loss of income which includes the application of
the RAF cap; the contingencies
and 75% apportionment and am inclined
to award the following amounts to the plaintiff:
(a) Past loss of income –
R 1 226 600.00
(b) Future loss of income
– R 4 207 688.00
(c) Total amount of award
– R 5 434 288.00
ORDER
In
light of what has been set out hereinabove, including the agreed upon
aspects between the litigating parties herein, the following
is the
order of this Court:
[46]
The defendant is held liable for 75% of the damages suffered by the
plaintiff as a consequence of the motor vehicle collision
on 13 June
2009 at approximately 01h10, at or near Mabalane Street, Senaone,
Soweto.
[47]
The defendant shall make payment to the plaintiff in delictual
damages in respect of past and future loss of earnings the sum
of R
5434 288.00 (five million four hundred and thirty four thousand two
hundred and eighty eight rands).
[48]
Payment of interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 10% per
annum, commencing 14 (fourteen days) from the date of this
order to
date of payment.
[49]
The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in
terms of
Section 17(4)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
,
for 75% of the costs of the plaintiff’s future accommodation in
a hospital or nursing home or treatment of or rendering
of a service
or supplying of goods to the plaintiff arising out of the injuries
sustained by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle
collision, after such
costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
[50]
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s agreed or taxed
party and party costs on the High Court scale to date,
such costs to
include, but not limited to the following: -
(a)
The costs of senior junior counsel, such cost to include preparation
cost and cost on attending trial on 06 and 08 June 2017
and cost for
preparing heads of argument;
(b) The qualifying and
reservation fees of the following expert witnesses, together with the
reasonable costs of obtaining their
medico-legal reports: -
(i) Dr C Barlin
(orthopaedic surgeon);
(ii) Prof S Mokgokong
(neurosurgeon);
(iii) Mr C Sampson
(clinical psychologist);
(iv) Dr L Badenhorst
(industrial psychologist);
(v) Ms M Siweya
(occupational therapist);
(vi) Dr E E Mashigo
(general practitioner);
(vii)
Mr A Munro (actuary).
[51] The issue of general
damages is postponed sine die, to be referred for finding to the
HPCSA.
________________________________
C I MOOSA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Mr D J Combrink
Instructed by: S Twala
Attorneys
Hyde
Park
Tel: 0113316736
Ref: Mr Twala/016
Counsel for Defendant:
Mr K Phahlamohlaka
Instructed by:
Maribana Makgoka Inc.
Johannesburg
Tel:
0113331845
Ref:
Mrs P Singh/SN/RAF1/563
Dates
of hearing: 06 June 2017
08
June 2017
Date
of Judgment: 31 May 2018
[1]
1948
(2) SA 913 (W)
[2]
1984
(1) SA 98
(A) at 112E – 114 F
[3]
2006
JOL 16926 (T)
[4]
The
Quantum of Damages, vol 1, 4
th
edition by Gauntlett at page 68; Southern Insurance Association Ltd
v Bailey
1984 (1) SA 98
(A) at 113 F – 114E