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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 453
|
|
B.B v Road Accident Fund (39437/2011) [2021] ZAGPPHC 453 (13 July 2021)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 39437/2011
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
NO
(3)
REVISED.
YES
DATE: 13 July 2021
SIGNATURE
In
the matter
between:
B[…]
B[….]
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
(CLAIM
NO: 3[...]) (LINK NO: 2[...])
JUDGMENT
KHWINANA
AJ
[1]
The Plaintiff is B[…] B[…], an adult female person, who
instituted action
against the Defendant in her personal capacity
pursuant to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the 10
th
of February 2009.
[2]
The plaintiff was 19 years old at the time of the accident. She is
now 31 years old.
The plaintiff was student at the time of the
accident. She is currently a nail technician.
[3]
Merits have been settled and Quantum is still in dispute. It is
common cause that
with regard to future medical, hospital and related
costs, the Defendant will provide the Plaintiff with an undertaking
in terms
of Section 17(4)(a).
[4]
The issue of liability was previously settled on the basis that the
defendant is liable
for 80 % of the Plaintiff’s proven and/or
agreed damages. Counsel submits that the issue of general damages and
Future medical
expenses, past and future loss of income was
previously settled between the parties however said settlement has
not been made an
order of court and as such provision is made in the
draft order the Plaintiff is moving for. Default judgment is moved
for in terms
of past medical expenses only. The defendant has
prepared and filed confirmation of offer and acceptance that can be
found on CaseLines.
The Defendant’s defence has been struck
out. A notice of withdrawal of the attorneys of record was received.
[5]
The Plaintiff appointed the following experts: Orthopaedic surgeon;
Plastic surgeon;
Ophthalmologist; Urologist; Clinical Psychologist;
Educational Psychologist; Occupational therapist; Industrial
Psychologist; Actuary
and Orthotist. The Plaintiff sustained the
injuries.
General damages
[6]
The Plaintiff’s appointed Plastic surgeon opinionated and
stated the following:
The Plaintiff’s appointed clinical
psychologist opinionated and stated the following: It is a trite
principle of our law
that a court in search of an appropriate quantum
for general damages must have regard to previous comparable cases. As
stated by
the Supreme Court of Appeal in
De Jongh v Du Pisani
[2004] 2 All SA 565
(SCA)
at 682I an award made will be fair
if it is consistent with previous cases of similar facts and law.
[7]
In the matter of
Wright v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident
Fund
reported in
Corbett and Honey
, Vol 4 at E-3-31
and in particular to the passage at E3-36 where Broom DJP stated as
follows: “
I consider that when having regard to previous
awards one must recognize that there is a tendency for awards now to
be higher than
they were in the past. I believe this to be a natural
reflection in the changes of society, the recognition of greater
individual
freedom and opportunity, rising standards of living and a
recognition that our awards in the past have been significantly lower
than those in most other countries.”
[8]
The age, sex, status, and relevant physical and psychological
characteristics of the
plaintiff may influence the award, e.g.
physical state and other aspects of the plaintiff at the time of the
accident as to endure
pain or not etc. For more see
Klopper
,
The Law of Third Party Compensation
1st Ed on p 144. The Judge
will assess the award to what he/she deems to be fair and reasonable
under the circumstances, the fairness
and reasonableness towards the
plaintiff and the defendant, i.e. the Fund. The list is not
exhaustive, but include the pain
endured, the intensity of the pain,
the disfigurement of the body of the plaintiff, loss of amenities,
shortened life/working expectancy
of the plaintiff etc. See
Klopper
p 150 on. Previous comparable awards, adjusted to reflect current
values, are also taken into account when calculating the reasonable
and fair award to be made for general damages. See
Road
Accident Fund v Marunga
2003 (5) SA 164
(SCA)
at
169E-F.
[9]
In the case of
Mohlaba v Road Accident Fund
(12010/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 12
(21 January 2016) the plaintiff
was awarded an amount of R540 000.00. The plaintiff suffered serious
injuries which had a permanent
effect on his life, in particular his
future earning capacity. The injuries can be summarized as follows:
“
the plaintiff sustained a right proximal radius and ulna
fracture. A bony anklosis has formed between the proximal radius and
ulna.
On clinical examination the plaintiff has no pro-and supination
of his forearm and his forearm remains in a fixed position 20 degrees
pronation. The loss of the forearm pro- and supination of the
plaintiff's dominant hand will prevent him from working as a
motorcycle
mechanic. He has suffered a significant loss of working
capacity. He has suffered an injury to his right ulna nerve resulting
in
loss of sensation in his small and ring fingers and some loss of
his intrinsic hand function".
[10]
In
Abrahams v Road Accident Fund
204 (7J2) QOD 1
(ECP)
, a 41 year old male suffered a badly communicated fracture
of the right proximal femur; fracture of the right distal fibula and
patella, fracture of the right medial melleous, severe soft tissue
injuries to the left hand; secretion in the chest and a mild
concussive traumatic head injury; shortening of the right lower limb
with need to wear an assistive device. He was awarded general
damages
of R663 000-00 (in 2017 terms
).
[11]
In
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb
1970 (2E3)
QOD 117 (A)
where the plaintiff, aged 29 at the time, sustained
injuries to his legs involving a closed fracture of the left femur
and a compound
fracture of the right tibia and fibula. After several
skin grafts over several years, he had to wear a built up shoe with
limited
movement of his knee and ankle. His personality changed and
he gave up all extra-mural activities such as playing rugby and
dancing.
He underwent various procedures during the following 4-5
years after the accident. He was awarded R20 000,00 for general
damages
after appeal, the converted 2016 value amount to R1 222
000,00.
[12]
In the matter of
Roe v The Road Accident Fund
(2009/161570 [2010] ZAGPJHC
(1 April 2010) the plaintiff
sustained a fracture of the femoral shaft, fracture of the tibia and
fibula, fracture of the right
patella, fracture of the left humerus,
injury to the right foot and upper tooth fractures. In this matter
the court awarded the
plaintiff R650 000 in respect of general
damages, which amount translates into an amount of R995 171.60 in
2016 terms. In
light of the aforementioned it is submitted that
the offer received is fair and reasonable.
[13]
Loss of income
13.1
The defendant’s expert (orthopaedic surgeon) recorded the
following:
“
WORK
CAPACITY
Past
She
returned to school around April 2009 and failed all her first quarter
examinations. She then returned again at the commencement
of
the second quarter, attending school with difficulty, as she was
wheelchair bound, and as a result failed her second quarter
examinations as well. She passed her record examination, as
well as the final Matric examinations, with university exemption,
but
was unable to take up further studies.
She was then employed
as a cashier at the pharmacy for some months, as an assistant at a
swimming school for children, from where
she had to resign in order
to be operated on in January 2011, after which she was employed on a
part-time basis by a lawyer, doing
administrative work, and commenced
her studies as beauty therapist and nail technician. She
commenced employment around January
2012 by Dr H C Toerien at ‘Face
& Body’ in White River, where she worked with difficulty
due to lower back pain,
stiffness of the left him and left knee when
standing and sitting for some time.
Present
[13.2]
The patient is employed by Dr H C Toerien at
Face & Body, and she
performs her duties with some difficulties, as noted.”
The plaintiff’s
expert (occupational therapist) recorded the following:
RESIDUAL WORK CAPACITY
AND EARNING POTENTIAL
[13.3]
Ms B[…] was in Grade 12 at the time of
the accident. She
passed Grade 12 at the end of 2009. She obtained qualification
as Nail Technician, also doing lashes,
waxing and microblading.
She is currently working as a Nail Technician where the physical
demand appears to be within sedentary
to light capacity.
[13.3.1]
During the physical assessment, she reported severe pain in
her
lower-back with prolonged standing, walking, kneeling, lifting and
carrying of weights. She reported severe pain in her
left knee
with prolonged standing, squatting, kneeling, walking and ascending
stairs. She reported pain in her left hip with
prolonged
walking. She displayed impaired left knee flexion with no
movement in her left ankle. According to the WorkWell
functional capacity evaluation, her current physical ability is
within light parameters which meet the physical demand of her current
job as a Nail Technician, but she experienced pain with prolonged
sitting, standing and walking periods.
[13.3.3]
It is recommended that an occupational therapist will perform
a work
visit to implement ergonomic principles in her work environment.
It is recommended that she will implement joint protection
principles
and spinal hygiene principles when performing her work tasks.
She will benefit from proposed medical intervention,
followed by
comprehensive rehabilitation and should then be able to perform her
work duties with more comfort. She would
however need to make
adjustments for the rest of her life when performing her word (sic)
duties due to the mobility challenges
she faces. It can be
expected that her pain symptoms will influence her productivity since
she needs to alter he position
often to relief the discomfort in her
lower-back and left leg. Her physical and emotional challenges
render her a vulnerable
person and an unequal competitor in the open
labour market.
[13.3.4]
Dr F A Booyse, orthopaedic surgeon, opines that the claimant’s
work capabilities were detrimentally influenced by her injuries and
its’ sequelae, and it is unlikely that the claimant will
be
able to return to her pre-accident level of activities and work
capabilities as a result of pain and symptoms arising from her
injuries. He reported that these injuries will result in
increasing signs and symptoms of disability and will deteriorate
with
advancing age.
[13.3.5]
Ms R Nel, clinical psychologist, opines that the client’s
physical pain and discomfort as well as her scarring has had a
significant impact on her emotional well-being, and reported symptoms
of Major Depression. She reported that Ms B[...]’s
physical pain and decreased psychological functioning could impact
on
her motivation and efficiency which would prevent her from optimal
functioning in any work environment.
[13.3.6]
Ms P Steyn, educational psychologist, opines that Ms B[...]
probably
had the potential to complete a three-year Diploma but for the
accident. She was a Grade 12 learner and at the time
of the
accident and managed to pass Grade 12 despite intense pain and
hospitalization, but did not continue with her studies.
She
managed to complete a certificate as a Nail technician leaving her
with a NQF level 4 as highest qualification. Ms Steyn
reported
that although no significant cognitive decline was evident because of
the accident, several operations to her left leg,
pain and emotional
turmoil contributed to a lack of motivation to uplift her
qualifications to reach her pre-accident potential.
Ms Steyn
reported that she may never be regarded as an equal competitor in the
open labour market as she may not do physically
demanding work, can’t
sit, walk or stand for extended periods, she has gained a lot of
weight and portrays as severely depressed.
Ms Steyn stated that
the psychotherapy might improve her general self-concept, but she
will probably always be regarded as emotionally
and physically
vulnerable. She reported that discomfort, pain and signs of
depression may thus always make Ms B[...] and
unequal competitor in
the open labour market.
[13.3.7]
The plaintiff’s expert
(industrial therapist) recorded the following:
“
The
writer conducted a telephonic conversation with Ms Steyn (Educational
Psychologist) on the 29
th
of March 2018 and she confirmed that a three-year diploma is at an
NQF 6 level and that this was merely a typing error in her original
report. The writer accepts Ms Steyn’s expert opinion in
this regard and Ms B[...]’s own testimony regarding her
plans
to further her studies after school. Uninjured, Ms B[...] would
therefore have been in a position to do much better
academically in
Grade 12 and from 2010 she would have enrolled for a National Diploma
in one of her fields of interest, such as
in Education, Somatology,
Human Resource Management, Business management, Public Administration
or Interior Design. She would
have been a full-time student for
three years and would most probably have completed her studies by the
end of 2012 and thereafter
she would have entered the open labour
market with the career and earnings potential of someone with an NQF
level 6 qualification.
The writer suggests
that a significantly higher than normal post-accident contingency
deduction should be applied to account for
the fact that she will
remain physically and psychologically vulnerable and is likely to
suffer extensive future periods of unemployment
and/or reduced levels
of earnings.”
[13.3.8]
The actuary based his calculation on the following:
Income
had the accident no occurred:
Considering the above,
I assumed that, had the accident not occurred, Ms B[…]’s
income would have been as follows:
Scenario
1:
·
She would have completed a Diploma in
December 2012 and remained unemployed for 6 months
·
She would have started working on 1 July
20213, earning R60’00 per year (R5’000x12, assumed in
April 2018 terms) for
1 year
·
From 1 July 2014, an income of R214’176
per year (median basic salary Paterson B4 in September 2017 terms)
·
Increasing in a straight line until
reaching R417’096 per year (median basic salary Paterson C4 in
September 2017 terms) at
age 45
·
Thereafter, increasing with earnings
inflations until retirement at age 65.
Scenario 2:
·
She would have completed a Diploma in
December 2021 and remained unemployed for 6 months
·
She would have started working on 1 July
2013, earning R60’000 per year (R5’000x12) assumed in
April 2018 terms) for
1 year
·
From 1 July 20214, an income of R280’140
per year (median guaranteed package Paterson B4 in September 2017
terms)
·
Increasing in a straight line until
reaching R580’116 per year (median guaranteed package C4 in
September 2017 terms) at age
45
·
Thereafter, increasing with earnings
inflations until retirement at age 65
[13.3.9]
Income having regard to the accident:
Considering the above,
I assumed that, having regard to the accident, Ms B[...]’s
income would be as follows:
·
She completed Grade 12 in December 2009
·
From 1 January 2010 until 30 June 2010:
a total income of R21’000 (R3’500x6)
·
From 1 July 2010 until 31 December
2011: a total income of R153’000 (R4’500x18 +
R4’000x18)
·
From 1 January 2012 until 31 December
2013: a total income of R120’000 (R5’000x24)
·
From 1 January 2014 until 28 February
2016: I assumed that she did not make any profit in her
capacity as a self-employed
Nail Technician (deference is given to
factual information)
·
From 1 March 2016, an income of R93’000
per year (R7’000x12 + average commission of R750x12; in
April 2018 terms)
·
Increasing with earnings inflation until
31 December 2018
·
From 1 January 2019, increasing in a
straight line until reaching an income of R144’000 per year
(R12’000x12, in April
2018 terms) at age 45
·
Thereafter, increasing with earnings
inflation until retirement at age 60.
She will not earn any
income for 5 days assumed from 1 July 2020, 4 weeks assumed from 1
July 2021 and for 12 weeks (20 % probability
of occurrence) in 2038
in order to undergo medical treatment.”
[13.3.10]
Limited loss:
Net limited loss of
income
Past loss
Future Loss
Total loss
Scenario 1
460’259
4’267’425
4’727’684
Scenario 2
627’485
5’589’002
6’216’487
[14] The CAP
is applicable in this matter and was taken into consideration. The
attorney made the following suggestion
for settlement:
Past
loss of earnings:
14.1
Writer submit that a 15 % contingency
deduction be applied to the
pre-morbid amount for past loss of earnings and 0 % on the
post-morbid amount for past loss of earnings.
14.2
After deduction of the suggested contingency
percentages the total
past loss of earnings equate to R344 318.60.
Future
loss of earnings:
14.3` Writer submit
that a 30 % contingency deduction be applied to the pre-morbid amount
for past loss of earnings.
14.4
After deduction of the suggested contingency
percentages the total
past loss of earnings equate to R3 367 065.80.
14.5
The total amount for past and future
loss of earnings after
application of contingency percentages would be R3 711 384.40.
14.6
NOTE:
Please take note that the abovementioned suggested
contingency percentages are based on the actuarial calculation dated
4
July 2019. The ‘RAF cap’ is applicable to the
calculation and therefore should these contingency deductions be
applied
Total
average between two scenario’s R5 472 085.50.
[15]
Case law in support of proposed contingency deductions
:
15.1
The percentage of the contingency deduction depends upon a number of
factors and ranges between 5 % and 50
%, depending upon the facts of
the case. (
AA Mutual Association Ltd v Maqula
1978(
1) SA 805
(A)
at 812;
De Jongh v Gunther
1975
(4) SA 78
(W)
at 81, 83, 84D;
Goodall v President
1978
(1) SA 389
(W)
at 393;
Van der Plaats v SA Mutual Fire &
General Insurance Co Ltd
1980 (3) SA 105
(A)
at
114-115A-D).
15.2 In
the matter of
Goodall v President Insurance Cc Ltd
1978 (1) SA 389
(W)
at 392H–393 A it was stated that:
“
In
the assessment of a proper allowance for contingencies, arbitrary
considerations must inevitably play a part, for the art or
science of
foretelling the future, so confidently practised by ancient prophets
and soothsayers, and by modern authors of a certain
type of almanac,
is not numbered among the qualifications for judicial office.”
15.3
In the unreported judgment of
Ndinisa
v Road Accident Fund
(55792/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 409 (23 May 2014)
Judge Hughes sums the approach up as follows:
[1]
“
the
determination of contingency allowances involves a process of
subjective impression or estimation rather than objective
calculation,
in other words, allowance on which judicial opinions
vary appreciably.
See
Shield
Insurance Co Ltd v Booysen
1979 (3) SA 953
(A)
at 965G-H.
15.4 In
Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO
1984 (1)
98 (AD)
the two approaches that can be used to ascertain future
loss of earnings are discussed on page 113 where the following is
said
by Nicholas JA:
“
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 guess
work, a blind plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to make an
assessment by way of mathematical calculations,
on the 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.”
Continues on page 114C-D
to state:
“
In
a case where the Court has before it material on which an actuarial
calculation can usefully be made, I do not think that the
first
approach offers any advantage over the second. On the contrary, while
the result of an actuarial computation may be no more
than an
“informal guess” it has the advantage of a logical
basis”.
15.5
In addition refer to in
Smit NO v The Road Accident Fund
,
The Quantum of Damages
,
Corbett and Honey, Volume 5
,
B4-251.
15.6
Robert J Koch in his book “
The Quantum Year book”
states that there are no fixed rules as regards general contingencies
and one of his helpful guidelines is that of the sliding
scale
contingency theory: “
Sliding scale: ½ % per year to
retirement age, i.e. 25 % for a child, 20 % for a youth and 10 % in
middle age”.
15.7 Koch’s
support of this sliding scale theory is attained from
Goodall v
President Insurance
1978 (1) SA 389
(W).
Analysis
[16]
The parties have settled the general damages, past and future loss of
earnings, and future hospital
and medical expenses in terms of
section 17(4). I have cumulatively taken into account all the
medico-legal reports submitted.
The plaintiff was involved in the
motor collision at a very young age. Her injuries have been
described as serious. The sequelae
of the injuries and the whole
personal impairment are indicative of the seriousness of the offence.
The general damages have been
accepted by the defendant and thus the
offer on the general damages.
[17]
In
Alla
v Road Accident Fund
[2]
a
41 year old correctional officer sustained fracture of the ankle
resulting in displacement of the distal tibia-fibula joint and
soft
tissue injury. Surgery was in the form of an open reduction and
internal fixation of the fracture. She was immobilized in
a cast for
six weeks and thereafter in an air cast brace. Pain was still being
experienced in the ankle resulting in the difficulty
in walking long
distances. Claimant was awarded general damages in the sum of R200
000-00.
[18]
Past awards serve as no more than to give some indication as to what
some of awards are appropriate
on the facts of a particular case. In
striving to determine a fair amount for general damages the court
should be guided by the
broadest general considerations on an amount
which is considered to be fair in all circumstances of the case.
[3]
I
have looked at the damages awarded in relation to general damages and
I am satisfied that the offer of R 750 000.00 less
20% is fair
and reasonable in the circumstances.
[19]
In the matter of
Mahlangu
v RAF
[4]
“
The
award for general damages remains a compensation, it ameliorates the
damage (pain and suffering) resulting from injuries sustained
in an
accident. It is not intended to be full compensation, if that is
possible, and it is not intended to wipe out, if that is
possible,
the damage.
as
made less 80% is plaintiff has claimed past and future loss of
earnings which is speculative and calculated on a possible income”.
[20]
What is taken into account is that the plaintiff will have lost their
productivity sense or the
work.
In casu
the situation seems to
be that the plaintiff will be able to work but might not be as
productive as she would have been but had
it not been for the
accident. It is imperative to note that she has been to different
jobs and has been able to secure other jobs.
She has never been lost
in the market. The amounts that has therefore been alluded to by the
actuary are postulated over a period
of time. What is taken into
consideration is the period of retirement which is usually 65 years
but in this case it is until 60
years. I am satisfied with the manner
in which the parties have taken into account contingencies.
[21]
I have also looked at the supporting documents in relation to the
past medical expenses and I
am satisfied that the amount claimed has
been proven.
[22]
Past medical expenses
The TOTAL amount in
respect of past medical expenses is R207 814.67 being vouchers
submitted that are in relation to the accident.
R 207 814.67
minus 20 % = R166 251.74 The Plaintiff will move for default judgment
in the amount of R166 251.74 (one hundred and
sixty-six thousand two
hundred and fifty-one rand and seventy-four cents) after
apportionment, in respect of the past medical and
hospital expenses.
[23]
Order sought
The
Defendant is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of
R3 302 194.62
(Three
million three hundred and two thousand one hundred and ninety-four
rand and sixty-two cents) made up as follows:
23.1
R600 000.00 (six hundred thousand rand), after apportionment, in
respect of the general damages;
23.2
R2 535 942.88 (two million five hundred and thirty-five
thousand nine hundred and forty-two rand and
eighty-eight cents),
after apportionment, in respect of the loss of earnings; and
23.3
R166 251.74 (one hundred and sixty-six thousand two hundred and
fifty-one rand and seventy-four cents) after
apportionment, in
respect of the past medical and hospital expenses.
23.4
The Defendant will furnish to the Plaintiff with an undertaking in
terms of section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of
1996 to pay the costs of the
future accommodation of the Plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home,
or treatment of or rendering
of a service or supplying of goods to
her arising from injuries sustained by her in a collision which
occurred on 10 February 2009
after the costs have been incurred,
limited to 80%
23.5
Costs of suit on party and party scale.
[24]
The following order is made:
The
draft order marked “X” is made an order of Court.
E.N.B. KHWINANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
[GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA]
On this the 13
th
day of July 2021 before the Honourable Khwinana, AJ
Via Videoconferencing
Order granted
electronically in accordance with the directives regarding special
arrangements during the National State of Disaster
Case
no: 39437/2011
In the matter between:
B[…]
B[…]
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
(CLAIM
NO:
3[...]
)
(LINK
NO:
2[...]
)
DRAFT
ORDER
AFTER
CONSIDERING THE PAPERS AND HEARING COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE
COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
1
The Defendant is ordered to pay to the
Plaintiff the amount of
R3 302 194.62
(Three million three hundred and two
thousand one hundred and ninety-four rand and sixty-two cents) made
up as follows:
1.1
R600 000.00 (six hundred thousand
rand), after apportionment, in respect of the general damages;
1.2
R2 535 942.88 (two million five
hundred and thirty-five thousand nine hundred and forty-two rand and
eighty-eight cents),
after apportionment, in respect of the loss of
earnings; and
1.3
R166 251.74 (one hundred and sixty-six
thousand two hundred and fifty-one rand and seventy-four cents) after
apportionment,
in respect of the past medical and hospital expenses.
2
The Defendant is required to pay the amount
mentioned in paragraph 2 above into the Plaintiff's Attorneys Trust
Account with account
number 0[...] at Standard Bank White River,
within 180 days from date hereof, during which period interest shall
not be payable.
Should the Defendant fail to make payment as set out
in paragraph 2 above then, in this instance, the Defendant shall be
liable
for payment of interest, calculated from 14 days after date
hereof, at the
tempore morae
rate.
3
The Defendant will furnish to the Plaintiff
with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of 1996 to
pay the costs
of the future accommodation of the Plaintiff in a
hospital or nursing home, or treatment of or rendering of a service
or supplying
of goods to her arising from injuries sustained by her
in a collision which occurred on 10 February 2009 after the costs
have been
incurred, limited to 80%;
4
The Defendant shall pay the
Plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High
Court scale to date.
BY THE COURT
REGISTRAR
CASE NO:
39437/2011
HEARD
ON:
09
June 2021
FOR
THE PLAINTIFF:
ADV.
C. SPANGENBERG
INSTRUCTED
BY:
Schutte
De Jong Incorporated
FOR
THE DEFENDANT:
NO
APPEARANCE. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
13
July 2021
[1]
Paragraph
11-14
[2]
2013
(6EB) QOD 1 (ECP)
[3]
Bay
Passenger Ltd v Frazen
1975
(1) SA 269
(A) at 274
[4]
(2013/46374) [2015] ZAGPJHC 342 (9 June 2015)