About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAFSHC 117
|
|
Louw N.O. v The Road Accident Fund (854/2017) [2022] ZAFSHC 117 (9 May 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN)
Case
no
.
854/2017
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
In
the matter between:
ADVOCATE
M LOUW
N.O.
Plaintiff
MATSHIDISO
LUCY OLIPHANT
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
QUORAM:
DE KOCK, AJ
HEARD
ON
:
20
st
APRIL 2022
JUDGMENT
BY
: DE KOCK, AJ
DELIVERED:
This
Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by e-mail and released to SAFLII.
The
date and time for hand down is deemed to be 11h00 on 9May 2022.
INTRODUCTION
:
[1]
The Plaintiff is Advocate M Louw N.O. obo Edward Oliphant, a major
male born on the
6
th
July 2002.
[2]
Edward Oliphant (“the Patient”) is 20 years of age and
was 12 years old
at the time of the accident.
[3]
This is a claim for personal injuries sustained by the Patient in a
motor vehicle
accident and damages suffered as a result thereof
against the Road Accident Fund.
[4]
At the onset of the trial Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated aspects
on which the
parties agree and aspects that the parties are in
disagreement.
ASPECTS
WHICH ARE IN AGREEMENT AND WHICH IS NO LONGER CONTENDED:
[5]
The issue of merits has been settled and the Defendant is liable for
100% of the proven
or agreed damages of the Plaintiff in accordance
with the Court order granted on the 6
th of
December 2017
by this Court. On the 28
th of
January 2022 the Defendant
tendered an amount of R3,136,389.00 as interim payment towards the
Patient’s loss of income claim,
the latter tender was made an
order of Court. The Defendant made a direct offer towards the
Patient’s mother regarding general
damages in the amount of
R1,528,000.00. The Defendant subtracted 15% apportionment on the
offer and paid the amount of R1,298,800.00
to the Patient’s
mother. The latter payment was made to the Patient’s mother
after the Patient was properly represented
by his attorney and was
done without the knowledge of the Patient’s attorneys. The
Defendant paid the amount in full and
final settlement as an interim
payment for general damages.
ISSUES
THAT THE PARTIES ARE IN DISAGREEMENT:
[6]
The parties disagree whether the amount of R1,528,000.00 is a full
and final payment
in terms of general damages and whether the
Defendant has any further obligation to pay any amount regarding
general damages. The
parties are further in disagreement regarding
the issue whether the Defendant was entitled to approach the
Patient’s mother
directly whilst the Patient was legally
represented. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether the
Defendant was entitled
to subtract any merits apportionment. Further
the parties are in disagreement in regard to the amount of general
damages that should
have been awarded.
PAST
AND FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME:
[7]
The parties agreed that the Plaintiff’s reports pertaining to
loss of income
may be handed up as evidence and that there was no
need for oral evidence by any of the experts. In terms of the Joint
Minutes
of the Plaintiffs and Defendant’s educational
psychologist and industrial psychologist agreements were reached on
all material
aspects. Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
Defendant’s legal representatives agreed that the parties are
bound by
the minutes and that it will form the basis of the
calculation of the Patient’s loss of income. The Plaintiff’s
actuary
Mr Sauer’s calculation is based on the Joint Minutes
and the parties agreed that the basis for the calculation is correct.
The parties further agreed that the life table applied by Mr Sauer is
correct. The disagreement between the parties regarding the
calculation of the Patient’s past and future loss of income is
about the contingencies that have to be applied.
[8]
The Defendant’s attorney agreed that the issues as outlined are
the correct
issues which the parties agree with and evenly confirmed
the issues as outlined as the issues that the parties are in dispute
with.
The Defendant’s attorney indicated that the Defendant
will not be calling any witnesses and that arguments will be advanced
regarding the issues in dispute.
[9]
As stated herein the Plaintiff’s expert reports was handed in
as evidence by
agreement between the parties. The reports were handed
in with affidavits signed by the experts and the reports was thus
admitted
in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2).
ISSUES
THAT STAND TO BE ADJUDICATED:
[10]
The aspect of general damages and the aspect pertaining to the
contingencies that must be applied
to Mr Sauer’s calculation
stands to be adjudicated. The Plaintiff requested costs on a punitive
scale as between attorney
and own client. The Court therefore also
needs to adjudicate the issue of costs.
EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE COURT:
DR
OELOFSE, ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON:
[11]
According to Dr Oelofse the Patient is diagnosed with a serious brain
injury (defuse axonal injury)
with residual chronic headaches,
cognitive changes, learning difficulties and behavioural changes. Dr
Oelofse further indicates
that the Patient sustained a thoracolumbar
spine injury. It is further indicated that the Patient sustained
direct trauma to his
spine evident by the yield scarring on his
thoracolumbar junction. The Patient sustained a fracture to his T-12
vertebrae with
changes to the end plate. The Plaintiff is already
showing radiological signs of spondylosis at the levels adjacent to
the fracture.
The doctor further opined that the Patient sustained a
much more serious injury than initially suspected and that at a young
age
he already has radiological changes of post-traumatic
spondylosis. The Patient has a very high probability to have pain for
the
rest of his life. The Patient has the probability of more than
50% for surgery. The Patient was further diagnosed with united distal
humerus fracture with residual elbow pain. It is Dr Oelofse, opinion
that the Patient would have been able to work to the normal
retirement age of 65 years, if not for the accident and injuries
sustained. The doctor further indicated that the Patient must
not be
allowed to work in a spine unfriendly environment at all. Dr Oelofse
also indicated that even if the Patient is accommodated
in a
light-duty spine friendly environment provision must be made for ten
(10) to fifteen (15) years earlier retirement.
MINUTES
BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS, MS LIDA ROOS AND MR GRAHAM HALSE:
[12]
The experts agree that as per the various medical records the Patient
sustained a serious traumatic
brain injury, fractured left humerus
and laceration on his back. The experts concluded that had the
accident not occurred the Patient
would have had the potential to
complete Grade 12 (NQF 4) with a certificate endorsement in a
mainstream school. The experts agreed
that following the accident the
Patient would not be able to progress according to his estimated
pre-incident potential. The experts
indicated that the Patient has
severe disabilities due to his severe brain injury. The Patient is
slow-functioning and has multiple
disabilities across a wide range of
areas. The experts indicated that the Patient will never be
employable and will remain a dependent
for the remainder of his life.
The Patient is in a special school and is expected to make slow
progress. The Patient is severely
cognitively challenged.
LINDLWA
GROOBOOM, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST:
[13]
It is indicated that in terms of the neuro-cognitive functioning the
Patient’s profile
reveals severe deficits mostly in right
hemispheric functioning and executive functioning associated with
frontal lobe injuries.
The neuro-psychological results are in keeping
with the diagnosed significant concussive head injury with an
associated moderately
severe to severe diffuse axonal brain injury.
It is indicated that it appears that the right hemisphere and frontal
lobe are mostly
compromised. It is further indicated that the
Patient’s cognitive profile seems to confirm the estimated
average pre-morbid
functioning in that some construct (verbal) memory
scales associated with left hemispheric functioning the Patient’s
performance
is sound. It is indicated that the Patient has
neuro-behavioural/personality changes post-accident which are brain
injury sequelae.
These include a short temper, aggressive behaviour
and irritability, the Patient also has bouts of social withdrawal and
due to
his limited cognitive functioning struggles to navigate
relationships. It is stated that poor interpersonal relationships may
not
only impact social integration but may also affect family
relations. It is the expert’s opinion that the
neuropsychological
deficits are likely to severely hamper the
Patient’s scholastic functioning even in a special school. The
expert indicated
that the latter are directly attributable to the
accident. The experts further indicated that the expert concurs with
the educational
psychologist, that the Patient is unemployable in the
open labour market to the extent of the neuropsychological deficits.
The
expert also indicated that the Patient’s personality
changes adversely impact interpersonal relation, further
limiting/impeding
his chances of obtaining and retaining any form of
employment. The expert is of the opinion that no spontaneous recovery
is expected
from a neuropsychological perspective and that the
expert’s findings are permanent brain injury sequelae.
E
KEMP, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST:
[14]
It is indicated that the Patient was unable to re-enter mainstream
schooling due to the extent
of his cognitive and functional
limitations. It is stated that it took some time to get the Patient
enrolled into a remedial school.
Since January 2017 the Patient
follows a school curriculum at Lettie Fouché School in
Bloemfontein. Following the injury
sustained, the Patient had to
relearn how to eat, walk, communicate, and swallow.
DR
SMUTS, NEUROLOGIST:
[15]
In the doctor’s opinion the Patient sustained a significant
concussive head injury. The
resulting negative effects are likely to
be mostly that of a cognitive and learning disability. The doctor
indicated that the Patient
also suffers from behavioural problems.
DR
VAN HEERDEN, PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTION SURGEON:
[16]
It is the doctor’s opinion that the occipital and mid-lumber
scars are amenable to improvement
of surgical intervention but will
always be present. The Patient’s scares over the left humerus
and left tibia are not amendable
to improvement with surgical
intervention will always be present. The doctor indicated that the
Patient’s scarring will always
be visible and is therefore
permanent.
JOINT
MINUTES BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS, MR B MOODIE AND MRS
KHESWA:
[17]
The industrial psychologists agreed on the following: the Patient was
12 years and 2 months at
the time of the accident and at the time of
the accident a Grade 5 learner. If it was not for the accident the
Patient would have
completed Grade 12 (NQF 4) and further studies
Higher Certification (NQF 5) whilst most likely being employed with
an organization/
If it was not for the accident the Patient would
have entered the labour market full-time, thereafter earning a basic
salary on
lower quartile of Patterson A3 and possible 13
th
cheque. Within six (6) to nine (9) years while progressing in a
straight line earning an annual guaranteed package and a complete
NQF
5 qualification. After one (1) year of completing NQF 5 qualification
the Patient would have been promoted in line with the
qualification.
The experts indicated that whatever Patterson level he would have
been on at that stage, due to his straight line
increases he would
immediately progress to the next Patterson level. The experts
indicated that progress in a straight line to
earn an annual
guaranteed package on the median of Patterson C1 in reaching the
pinnacle of career at the age of 45. The experts
further indicated
that the Patient would have received inflationary increase until the
retirement age of 65. The experts also indicated
that due to the
severity of the Patient’s injury he is considered unemployable
for all practical reasons.
ACTUARY,
JOHAN SAUER:
[18]
Mr Sauer calculated the Patient’s past loss of earnings before
contingency deductions as
R18,019.00 and the Patient’s future
earnings before contingencies as R6,784,992.00.
[19]
The actuary applied 5% total deduction for past losses (pre-morbid)
and 0% total deduction for
past losses (post morbid). The Patient’s
past loss earnings was therefor calculated to be R17 118.
RELEVANT
CASE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES
:
[20]
Du Toit obo Dikeni v RAF
2016 (1) SA 367
(FB)
,
the Court also referred to
Bonesse v RAF and Ndokweni v RAF
,
both judgments by Pickering J and I quote paragraphs [45] and [46]:
In
Du Toit
:
“
[45] In
Bonesse
v Road Accident Fund
2014 JDR 0303 (ECP), Pickering J
considered the general principles applicable to contingencies and the
dicta in Bailey. The Learned
Judge concluded as follows: pertaining
to the contingencies to be applied in respect of a claim of a
13-year-old girl (at 18):
(1) Mr van der Linde submitted …
that given Carly was 13 years old at the time of the accident it
would be appropriate to
apply a contingency factor of 30% to her
future loss of earnings. Mr Frost however submitted that a
contingency deduction of 20%
should be applied. He referred in this
regard to Koch: Quantum Yearbook 2014, page 114 where the learned
author states that it
has become customary for the Court to apply a
so-called sliding scale to contingencies – i.e. 25% for a
child, 20% for a
youth and 10% in a middle age. It would appear that
although contingency factors which have been applied in cases
involving youths
and children range from 15% to 40%., the Courts have
generally been inclined to apply a contingency figure of 20% in
respect of
youths or plaintiffs in their teenage years. Having regard
to all the circumstances of the matter including, his age, I am of
the
view that the contingency factor of 25% should be applied.
”
[21]
It has become customary for the Court to apply the so-called sliding
scale of contingencies which
entails that half a percent for every
year to retirement age i.e. 25% for a child, 20% for a youth and 10%
in the middle age.
See in this regard
:
Goodall
v President Insurance Co Ltd
1978 (1) SA 389
(W)
.
[22]
A Trial Court has a wide discretion when it comes to determining
contingencies.
See
:
Hefer N.O. v Road
Accident Fund
(2019) JOL 458
– 7 (FB) at para [12]
.
PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS:
[23]
Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted that based on the calculation of
Mr Sauer for loss of future
income, that on the past loss scenario a
5% pre- and 0% post-morbid is the correct contingency deduction to be
applied and there
exists no reason why there should be a deviation on
this contingency.
[24]
Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted regarding future loss of income
that the normal half percent
(½ %) contingency for every
remaining working year until age of 65 years should apply, this would
be 22.5% pre-morbid and
due to all factors mentioned by the experts a
contingency deduction of 0% post-morbid be applied due to the
vulnerability of the
Patient and all experts agreeing that the
Patient is in sympathetic employment.
[25]
Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted that according to the experts the
future earnings of the
Patient amounts to R6,784,992.00. It is
submitted that at a contingency deduction of 22.5% that an amount of
R1,526,623.00 must
be deducted and that the Patient’s future
loss of earnings then amounts to an amount of R5,258,368.80. The
Patient’s
loss of earnings must then be added to the amount of
past loss of earnings taking into consideration the 5% contingency
deductions
the amount of R17,118.00 must be added. The Patient’s
total loss of earnings then amounts to R5,275,486.80.
DEFENDANT’S
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE’S SUBMISSIONS
:
[26]
The Defendant’s legal representatives did not hold any
instructions in regard to the Patient’s
past loss of earnings
and submit that in regard to future loss of earnings a contingency
deduction of 35% finds application. It
was submitted on behalf of the
Defendant that normal contingencies cannot be applied in the current
matter before Court considering
that the Patient was 12 years old at
the time of the accident and further considering the Patient’s
family background. The
Patient would be the first in his family to
obtain his senior certificate.
PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION IN REPLY:
[27]
Plaintiff’s Counsel in reply submitted that the contingency
deduction in line with the
High Court of Appeal’s judgment in
the matter of
N Khoza obo Z Khoza
(Case number
216/2001)
of 20% is the
locus classicus
but that the Court
will not deduct more post-morbid contingencies of more than 22.5%.
COURT’S
FINDINGS
:
[28]
With due regard to the facts and circumstances of this matter and
with due regard to the case
law as highlighted by this Court, the
Court finds that the suitable contingency deduction to be applied on
the past loss scenario
is 5% pre- and 0% post-morbid and regarding
the future loss scenario a contingency deduction of 22.5% pre-morbid
and a 0% percent
deduction post-morbid. The Patient’s total
loss of earnings then amounts to R5,275,486.80. Further considering
the interim
loss award of R3 136 389, the Court finds that
the Patient’s loss of income amounts to R 2 139 097.80
GENERAL
DAMAGES
:
Plaintiff’s
Counsel’s submissions:
[29]
It is submitted that as far as general damages are concerned the
Patient qualifies in terms of
the narrative test as per the RAF.4 of
Dr Oelofse. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that an amount of
R2,350,000.00 minus the
interim payment of R1,298,800.00 paid
directly to the Patient’s mother thus an award of R1,051,200.00
would be a fair amount
for the Patient’s general damages.
[30]
Counsel for the Plaintiff referred to numerous matters pertaining to
general damages. The Court
in this judgment only refers to the most
relevant matters for purposes of this judgment. In
Megalane
N.O. v Road Accident Fund
2006, 5A4 (QOD) (W)
, the
Plaintiff sustained severe brain injury with diffuse and focal brain
damage in the form of a subdural haematoma resulting
in cognitive
impairment characterised by poor verbal and visual memory, poor
concentration and distractibility, impaired executive
function
characterised by frontal lobe disinhibition causing inappropriate
behaviour, speech difficulties characterized by dysarthria
and word
retrieval difficulties, bilateral hemiparesis with severe spasticity
of all four limbs and facial paralysis as well as
aphasis. Confined
to a wheelchair. Intelligence level that of a young child. Although
limited, still has insight in his predicament.
An above average
scholar before the accident, who would probably have undergone
tertiary education, left with permanent severe
physical and mental
disabilities rendering him unemployable. The Plaintiff was awarded
R1,000,000.00 in 2006 for general damages.
This will equate to
R2,285,000.00 in 2021 monetary terms.
[31]
In
M v Road Accident Fund
(12601/2017) [2018]
ZAGPJHC 438
the Plaintiff sustained severe head injuries,
neurobehavioral deficits and multiple lacerations and abrasions. The
Plaintiff was
awarded R1,900,000.00 in 2018 for general damages, this
will equate to R2,125,600.00 in 2021 monetary terms.
[32]
In the matter of
VW v RAF
Quorum Mbhele J
, heard
on 29 October 2018 and delivered on the 1
st of
February
2019, Justice Mbhele awarded an amount of R2,100,000.00 in general
damages, 2022 value R2,372,266.07. The Plaintiff’s
injuries
were described by Dr Oelofse the orthopaedic surgeon as a traumatic
brain injury with a base skull fracture, pons bleed,
mandible
fracture, and right- lower leg – tib/fib fracture. The Patient
was in a coma and transferred to ICU and ventilated
on a T-piece
still and with a GCS of 4/15. The Plaintiff’s current symptoms
were headaches and behavioural and emotional
disorders.
[33]
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Patient’s injuries
are far worse than latter
matter.
DEFENDANT’S
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE’S SUBMISSIONS:
[34]
It is submitted that in the matter of
VW v RAF
,
referred to by the Plaintiff’s Counsel is not comparable to the
matter before Court as the Plaintiff in the
VW v RAF
,
was suffering serious bodily injuries and physical effects on top of
behavioural and emotional disorders. The Defendant referred
to
Section 17(3)(b)
of the
Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005
in terms of which it is stated that:
“
In each and any order as to
costs on making such award, the Court may take into consideration any
written offer, including a written
offer without prejudice in course
of settlement negotiations, in settlement of the claim concerned,
made by the Fund or an agent
before the relevant summons was served.
”
[35]
It is submitted that the Court must consider the amount of general
damages paid to Me Oliphant
who at the time had the relevant
locus
standi
to enter into an agreement with the Defendant and who was
the initial Plaintiff in the action which is currently before Court.
[36]
The Defendant’s legal representative evenly referred to
numerous matters to Court herein
only refers to the most relevant
matters. In
Vakata v Road Accident Fund
2014 (7) A4
(QOD 1) (ECP
)
,
the Plaintiff suffered a
moderately
severe brain
injury with a skull fracture and probable diffused
injury resulting in frontal – limbic dementia and
post-traumatic epilepsy.
She suffered cognitive deficits in the form
of limited ability to learn new information, impairment of executive
functioning disinhibition
and lack of control of emotions, limited
insight and behavioural difficulties. She was 3 years old at the date
of the collision
and the injuries left her with an intellectual
capacity falling within the reigns of mild retardedness. Plaintiff
for the Counsel
submitted that she was awarded R650,000.00 which is
in 2022 worth R737,160.45.
THE
COURT’S FINDINGS:
[37] The
Court has considered the Patient’s injuries and sequelae as
well as previous awards
granted. The Court notes that each case must
be adjudicated on its own merits within the overarching maxim of
stare decisis.
The Court finds that a fair, reasonable award
for general damages is R2 100 000. Subtracting the amount of
R1 298 800
paid to the Patient’s mother the award of
general damages amounts to R801 200.
COSTS
:
[38]
Counsel for the Plaintiff referred to numerous matters in support of
the contention that the
punitive of cost order must be awarded
against the Defendant. The Court refers to the matters most relevant
to the adjudication
of the matter before Court.
[39]
In the matter of
Tshabangu v RAF
(South Gauteng High
Court) (Case number 49589/2009)
, Wiener J stated the following:
“
[20]
It happens on virtually every occasion that the matter is called on
the Trial
Court that the parties are not ready to proceed because the
defendant’s counsel has not received proper instructions.
Whether
it is the attorney’s fault for not keeping the
defendant updated on a regular basis or the defendant’s fault
for not
keeping abreast with the progress of the matter, is an issue
which permeates the civil role on a daily basis … most are
settled at trial or postponed because the parties (usually the
defendant) has been dilatory in providing expert reports or offering
a settlement.
[21]
If the communication between the defendant and its attorneys was
regular, timeous and informed these matters would in the main become
settled as they should long before the trial. This would enable
the
Court’s function to be exercised properly in the administration
of justice and not as an eleventh hour power to force
parties to get
their house in order…..
”
[40]
In the matter of
Mlatsheni v Road Accident Fund
2009
(2) SA 401
(E) (2009) 2 SA p. 401
, it was held that it is
expected of Organs of State that they behave honourably – that
they treat the members of the public
with whom they deal with
dignity, honesty and fairly. This is particularly so in the case of
the
Road Accident Fund
, it is mandated to compensate
with public funds those who have suffered violations of their
fundamental rights to dignity, freedom
and security of person and
bodily integrity as a result of road accidents. The Court held that
by so frustrating the legitimate
claim of the Plaintiff the employee
of the Fund who gave the Defendant’s legal representative
instructions to raise the spurious
defence had acted in violation of
the Constitution: he/she has by unjustifiably frustrating the claim
of the Plaintiff failed to
protect, promote or fulfil his fundamental
rights to human dignity to freedom and security of the person and the
body integrity.
The Court warned that if this type of conduct
continues that the time might well have arrived for orders
costs
de bonis propriis
to be awarded against employees of the
Defendant who gave instructions that have effect of frivolous
frustrating legitimate claims.
[41]
The Defendant’s legal representatives submits that there is no
evidence before Court on
which the Court can make a finding
justifying a punitive cost order.
COURT’S
FINDINGS:
[42]
On the first day of the trial the Defendant’s legal
representative had no instructions
to consent to the joint minutes
compiled by the experts. It was only on the second day of the trial
that the Defendant’s
legal representative had instructions to
consent that the joint minutes may be handed in as evidence. Evenly
only on the second
day did the legal representative of the Defendant
have instructions to consent to Mr Sauer’s calculations being
used. On
the second day of the trial the legal representative of the
Fund still did not have instructions regarding the contingencies
applicable
to the past loss of income. This conduct had the effect
that Court time was wasted, extra cost incurred for which the
taxpayer
is liable at the end of the day. Further the Patient’s
general damages has been under settled. The Defendant did not
disclose
to the Court what the legal basis was for the Defendant to
approach the mother of the Patient directly while the Patient was
properly
represented by an attorney. This conduct can only be marked
as
mala fide
. The Defendant was given an opportunity to
produce evidence however elected not to do so. The Defendant further
elected not to
disclose to the Court how it came about that the
merits was settled on an 85% basis during the general damages
settlement as 15%
merits apportionment was deducted. No explanation
whatsoever was placed before Court. The Defendant filed a plea of
bare denial
and when all the facts and circumstances showed that the
plea was not in line with the facts and knowledge the Defendant had
of
the case, it persisted with its plea. Taking all into
consideration the Court finds that an attorney and client cost order
is the
appropriate cost order in the prevailing circumstances.
ORDER:
[43]
In the circumstances the Court grants the following order:
1. The Settlement
Agreement entered into on 12 January 2017 between ML Oliphant and the
Defendant is set aside.
2. The Defendant
shall pay to the Plaintiff In his representative capacity the amount
of R
2 940 297.80
which is compiled as follows:
2.1 R801 200
for general damages.
2.2 R
2 139 097.80 for past and future loss of earnings.
3. Payment of the
capital amount set out in paragraph 2 above is to be made within one
hundred and eighty (180)
days of this order failing which the
Defendant shall become liable to pay interest
a tempore morae
on
the capital amount aforesaid at the rate of 7% per annum from one
hundred and eighty (180) days after the date of this order
to date of
final payment.
4. The Defendant is
to pay the Plaintiff’s costs on an attorney and client scale.
The costs shall include:
4.1 The costs
of Counsel including the costs of drafting Heads of Argument on
instructions of the Court.
4.2 The
reasonable and qualifying fees of the following experts:
(a) J C Sauer, (Actuary);
(b) L Roos, (Senior Educational
Psychologist);
(c) R van Biljon (Occupational
Therapist);
(d) B Moodie, (Industrial
Psychologist);
(e) L F Oelofse, (Orthopaedic
Surgeon);
(f) J A Smuts, (Doctor –
Neurologist);
(g) Dr SP Van Heerden,
(Plastic/Reconstructive Surgeon);
(h) L Grootboom, (Clinical
Psychologist).
DE
KOCK, A.J.
Appearance
on behalf of the Plaintiff
:
Advocate
:
D.J MARX
Attorney
:
VZLR Incorporated Attorneys, c/o Du Plooy Attorneys, 49 Parfitt
Avenue, Park West, Bloemfontein.
Appearance
on behalf of the Defendant
:
Attorney
:
C Bornman, Office of the State Attorney, 11
th
Floor, Fedsure Building, 49 Charlotte Maxeke Street, c/o the Road
Accident Fund, Ground Floor, Fedsure Building, 62 St Andrews
Street,
Bloemfontein