About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1966
|
|
Mathebula v Road Accident Fund (82839/18) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1966 (28 November 2023)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO:82839/18
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date: 28
November 2023
E van der Schyff
In
the matter between:
MATHEBULA
ALONE KILLER
PLAINTIFF
AND
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Van
der Schyff J
[1]
The plaintiff was injured in a motor
vehicle accident on 21 November 2015. He was a passenger. The
defendant conceded liability
for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven
or agreed-upon damages.
[2]
This court is only requested to deal with
the issues of past medical expenses, future medical costs, and the
quantum of the claim
for loss of income.
[3]
The plaintiff was 32 years old at the time
of the accident. He was employed as a store manager at Ackermans
before the accident
occurred. His employment commenced on 1 April
2008. When he recuperated from his injuries, he returned to his
employment as store
manager in January 2016. He reported that he
struggled to concentrate, was forgetful, and often fought with staff
members. He also
reported struggling to stand for prolonged periods
due to lower limb pains. He was subsequently dismissed due to
misconduct. He
reported a period of unemployment from 13 April 2018
to December 2019. He is currently employed as an agricultural team
leader.
[4]
The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic
brain injury, a degloving scalp wound, and diminished vision of the
left eye. He now requires
spectacle correction for myopia. The
ophthalmologist reports that the plaintiff’s functional vision
score is 100% and that
his whole-person impairment is 0%
[5]
From the Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgeon’s report, the court is informed that the plaintiff
sustained blunt trauma to the
head with a degloving injury on his
forehead involving his left eyebrow, soft tissue left ankle, and soft
tissue right knee injuries.
Although the doctor noted that his
scarring would seriously affect his employability and earning
capacity, the doctor noted that
the plaintiff would benefit from scar
revision surgery.
[6]
The occupational therapist opined that the
plaintiff was suited for his pre- and post-accident position as a
store manager despite
his injuries and their sequelae. The clinical
psychologist noted that the plaintiff meets the criteria for a major
depressive disorder
related to the accident and its aftermath. He
indicated that ‘it is likely that his involvement in the motor
vehicle accident
has led to some mild neurocognitive difficulties.
[7]
Having regard to the expert witnesses'
opinions regarding the plaintiff’s accident-related cognitive,
psychological, and emotional
challenges, I accept that the accident
impacted his earning capacity. Sight can, however, not be lost on the
fact that the plaintiff’s
decrease in income is solely
attributed to his being dismissed for misconduct. The experts did not
link the misconduct to any accident-related
sequelae
.
[8]
I am thus of the view that the appropriate
manner of calculating the plaintiff’s capacity loss is to use
the postulated uninjured
income of R4 150 203 as the basis for the
calculation. Contingency deductions of 15% for the pre-accident
scenario and 30% for
the post-accident scenario (disregarding
fractions) will sufficiently compensate the plaintiff for his loss of
future income. The
qualified capacity loss amounts to R 622 530.00
[9]
Having
regard to the fact that the plaintiff was dismissed for misconduct,
the accident cannot be considered the sole or primary
reason for him
not being able to obtain work sooner after being dismissed. I have to
have regard, however, to the opinion that
the scarring would render
him a vulnerable employee. For the past loss, I am of the view that
the defendant should only be held
liable for the loss of 50% of the
postulated accident-related loss.
[1]
[10]
The issues of past medical expenses and
general damages are separated and stand to be postponed
sine
die.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
The
Order marked ‘X’ dated and signed by me is made an order
of Court.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
It will be emailed to
the parties/their legal representatives as a courtesy gesture.
For the plaintiff:
Adv. E. Muller
Instructed by:
Mphela &
Associates
Date of the
hearing:
30 October 2023
Date of judgment:
28 November 2023
[1]
In
calculating the past loss I used the figures provided by the actuary
as captured in the heads of argument. 50% of the postulated
past
income had the accident not occurred is R607 433. The income
received amounted to R481 823. The difference is R125 610.