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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 17
|
|
Pretorius v Road Accident Fund (80333/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 17 (4 February 2019)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE
WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED No
DATE:
4 February 2019……..………………………
SIGNATURE:
.…………………………………………………
Case No. 80333/2015
In the matter between:
ANDRIES
PRETORIUS PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MILLAR, A J
1.
The
plaintiff was injured in a motor collision on 5 November 2013. A
claim was submitted to the defendant which is the statutory
body
established to deal with such claims.
2.
The
plaintiff and the defendant were able to resolve all issues between
themselves save the quantum of the loss of income suffered
as a
result of the injuries sustained in the collision and their sequelae.
3.
The
parties briefed various medico-legal experts and those experts met
and produced minutes. It was agreed between the parties that
the
issue for determination would be argued on the papers and that no
viva
voce
evidence would be led. It was also agreed that the plaintiff
had indeed suffered a loss as a result of his injuries and an
actuarial report obtained by the defendant, and which contained
calculations reflecting the figures for the two scenarios contended
for by the industrial psychologists briefed by the respective parties
was to form the basis for an award.
4.
I
was called upon to decide which of the two scenarios was the more
probable and to then make an award accordingly.
5.
The
first scenario was that the plaintiff would have continued working as
the Head of Maintenance at a mine, a position he had held
for many
years prior to his injury. On this scenario his annual remuneration
was R996 784.08 per annum. He would have worked in
this capacity
until retirement.
6.
The
second scenario was that having regard to the fact that the
particular mine where the plaintiff had worked was closed down and
he
was retrenched from his employment there, he would have reverted to
working as a fitter and turner which was his initial qualification.
At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff was employed elsewhere but
earning only R520 000,00 per annum, the income in this capacity.
7.
The
sequelae of the injuries suffered have rendered the plaintiff
unlikely to ever secure employment in the formal mining sector
again
now that he has been retrenched. There is also some question as to
whether he will be able to sustain his current level of
income.
8.
The
calculation of the plaintiff’s loss on the basis set out in the
first scenario, net the apportionment and of a contingency
deduction
of 5% for past loss of earnings, both pre and post-accident and 15%
and 20% for the future loss of earnings respectively
was R3 296
502,00.
9.
The
calculation of the plaintiff’s loss on the basis set out in the
second scenario, net the apportionment and of a contingency
deduction
of 5% for past loss of earnings, both pre and post-accident and 15%
and 20% for the future loss of earnings respectively
was R1 548
203,00.
10.
There
are a number of imponderables in the consideration of this matter.
Would the plaintiff have been able to secure equivalent
employment in
the mining sector notwithstanding the mine closure had he not been
injured and would the plaintiff now that he is
injured be able to
sustain his current earnings until retirement?
11.
Having
regard to the fact that both scenarios are equally probable, and that
there is no doubt that the plaintiff has and will indeed
suffer a
loss of income, it is for this reason that I made an award that
represents the
via
media
between the two scenarios i.e. R2 422 352,00.
12.
In
the circumstances I made the draft marked “X” with the
amendment to paragraph 3 an order of court.
A MILLAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD
ON:
1 FEBRUARY 2019
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON:
1 FEBRUARY 2019
RAESONS
FOR JUDGMENT:
4 FEBRUARY 2019
COUNSEL
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ADV C DREDGE
INSTRUCTED
BY:
GERT NEL INC.
REFERENCE:
MR P
COETZEE
COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MR A NTIMBANA
INSTRUCTED
BY:
FOURIE FISMER INCORPORATED
REFERENCE:
MR A
NTIMBANA