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 188
|
|
Viljoen v Cornelius and Others (48446/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 188 (15 May 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
Case number: 48446/2014
Date:15/5/2019
In
the matter between:
C
VILJOEN obo J J D
VILJOEN
PLAINTIFF
AND
DEON
CORNELIUS
1
ST
DEFENDANT
S
C
CORNELIUS
2
ND
DEFENDANT
FIR-O-SEAL
3
RD
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
TOLMAY,
J:
[1]
The
Plaintiff sued the Defendants for damages as a result of an injury
she sustained when she fell from a zip line at a boot camp,
which
occurred at a guest farm owned and operated by the Defendants. Merits
and quantum were separated. The Court, hearing the
merits, found that
the Defendants were liable for 100% of the damages suffered by the
Plaintiff.
[2]
This
Court accordingly only had to determine the quantum of damages.
Plaintiff sued the Defendant for an amount of R3 744 743-00.
The
Defendants made an interim payment of R500 000-00 and this amount
should be subtracted from any amount awarded to the Plaintiff.
[3]
The
Plaintiff claimed damages under the following headings:
Past medical expenses
R 182
000-00
Future medical expenses
R1 119 858-00
Past
loss of income
R 31 153-00
Future
loss of income
R1 811 732-00
General
damages
R 600 00-00
[4]
Past
medical expenses was settled between the parties at R130 000- 00 and
future cosmetic surgery was settled at R50 000-00.
[5]
The
Plaintiff is a 39 year old woman, who got married in September 2000.
She passed matric and obtained a diploma in somatology
and worked as
a beautician at the time of the accident. Her salon was at home. She
has two children who are respectively in grade
8 and grade 5.
[6]
The
Plaintiff testified that she was injured whilst sliding down a zip
line, when she fell and injured her right leg. She was initially
taken to the Life Midmed Hospital in Middelburg. She was not admitted
at the time, apparently as no orthopaedic surgeon was available.
A
backslab was applied and she was sent home. She saw an orthopaedic
surgeon on the Monday at Life Cosmos Hospital, at this point
x-rays
were taken and she got pain medication. She was admitted to the
hospital on Tuesday, initially surgery could not be performed
due to
swelling. It was established that she sustained three ankle fractures
on the right side, a fracture of the right fibula
and she tore a
ligament in her right knee.
[7]
According
to Dr Birrel, the orthopaedic surgeon's report the Plaintiff received
the following treatment:
"1.
A plaster of Paris cast was applied to the right ankle and a Ranger
brace at 10°
to
30°
.
2.
A
PCL-knee brace was applied.
3.
Right
ankle examination was done under anaesthetic, as well as repair of
the interosseous membrane and a right knee arthroscopy,
synovectomy
excision cartilage lesion was performed on 16 April 2014 (quoted from
the hospital records verbatim).
4.
Right
knee arthroscopy, PCL reconstruction and posterior lateral comer
reconstruction was performed, synovectomy, hamstring harvesting,
left
knee to tendon Achilles with an alo (sic) graft UP was performed on
21 May 2014.
Note: These descriptions of the
procedure do not always make sense! They were quoted from the
hospital consent forms. Clearly Dr
Stoffberg's notes are required."
[8]
Despite
Dr Birrel's comment that the description of procedures did not always
make sense, he and Dr Engelbrecht, the orthopaedic
surgeon employed
by the Defendants, agreed on the treatment received in the joint
minute. This was not clarified with Dr Birrel
during testimony and
the Defendant did not call Dr Engelbrecht. In the light of the
agreement relating to past medical expenses
there exists no dispute
between the parties and the Court needs not concern itself with this
aspect any further.
[9]
Plaintiff
testified that after the operation her leg was in a cast for two
weeks and she then had to wear a brace and moon boot
for about 8
weeks. After that, her leg was in a brace for six months, she had to
use crutches during this period. After this period
she was still
scared to fall and used one crutch for about six months. She also
experienced stiffness in her right ankle. She underwent
physiotherapy. She said that she still limps and gets tired. When she
gets tired she tends to lean to one side. She said she cannot
wear
high heel shoes any more, and finds it difficult to traverse uneven
surfaces. She is also no longer able to run. When she
walks she gets
tired easily. She experiences a burning sensation in her calf when
she walks too much.
[10] She
testified that before the accident she was active and went to the gym
four times a week and did
spinning. Since the accident she has been
unable to do this at all. Her inability to be active has a huge
impact on her physical
and emotional wellbeing.
[11]
Prior to the accident she worked as a
beautician from home. She was unable to work for four months after
the accident. After that
she contacted clients, but there was little
interest, and in any event she could not stand for longer than 30
minutes at a time,
which made working as a beautician impossible. She
had no choice, but to close her business. With the help of her sister
she obtained
employment as an assistant at a school where she
observed children when a teacher was absent. During this period her
husband also
got retrenched. It apparently took a few months before
he could obtain other employment.
[12]
The Plaintiff decided to study teaching
after the accident. She registered for a B Ed degree during 2015. She
completed her studies
in 2018 and is now a qualified teacher.
[13]
During January 2015 she secured
employment as a student teacher and taught children between the ages
of 1 - 2 years. She said that
children of this age require a lot of
physical activity from the teacher and that aggravated her pain. She
resigned during 2015,
as she could not cope with the demands of this
particular job.
[14]
During 2016 she succeeded in obtaining a
position as a teacher at Laerskool Taalfees. There she taught Grade
RR. The children were
bigger and required less physical effort, as a
result she managed better. During 2017 she was promoted and got to
teach Grade R
learners. She resigned at Laerskool Taalfees during
2018, after she was moved to a class to teach special needs children.
Their
physical and emotional problems required physical assistance
that she was unable to cope with, due to her own physical
limitations.
She resigned for that reason, but the fact that her son
became head boy also contributed to her decision as he required more
attention.
Another contributory factor, for the resignation, was that
she wanted to finalise her studies.
[15]
During 2018 she qualified as a teacher
and got a permanent post teaching Grade 3. Children of this age are
not so dependant on a
teacher and do . not need· so much
physical assistance. She can manage the breaks that she needs from
standing and walking
better and seems to be doing well in her present
position.
[16]
At school she coaches hockey, but there
are two coaches and her task is to share information, take notes of
mistakes and this information
is then apparently shared during the
breaks. I infer that not much physical activity is required from her.
[17] She
relayed that the incident also impacted on her relationship with her
children as she cannot participate
in physical activities with them
as she did in the past. The family seemed to have been very active
prior to the accident, as they
went to a boot camp together, where
plaintiff got injured. Apparently the accident also impacted on her
marital relationship. Her
husband left the bedroom for the time that
her leg was in a brace. It would seem that her emotional difficulties
and embarrassment
about her scarring also impacted on the
relationship, and she said that her husband said that she does not
look the same. It seems
that Plaintiff feels embarrassed and even
unattractive as a result of her injuries.
[18]
She said that she has not been very
sociable since the accident. She has been suffering from depression
since the accident. Anti
depressants were prescribed. The
anti-depressants with the least side effects were prohibitively
expensive and the others caused
side effects like skin rashes and
weight gain. She stopped taking the medication prescribed. Apart from
the reasons mentioned above,
she fears drug dependency, as she has a
family history of addiction. Her inactivity as a result of the
injuries sustained, also
contributed to her weight gain. She gained
more than 1O kg's after the accident. As her appearance is very
important to her, this
also impacted on her emotional wellbeing. She
has since managed to lose some of the weight and at this point does
not seem to struggle
with her weight.
[19]
The Plaintiff testified that she had a
difficult childhood, which might contribute to the depression from
which she suffers. Her
parents got divorced when she was 9 years old
and her father died sometime after that. Her mother remarried and she
was sexually
abused by her stepfather, since the age of 9 years,
until she got married at the age of approximately twenty years. She
said she
got married, primarily to get out of the house. She never
received any counselling regarding the molestation. She got very
emotional
during this evidence and requested that her mother, who was
present, leave the Court during this testimony. Although she
testified
that the abuse did not impact that much on her life, it
must have contributed to her susceptibility to depression that
manifested
after the accident. Her reaction during this evidence also
indicated that the molestation might be a bigger contributory factor
to her present depression, than she may realise.
[20]
She testified that she will keep on
working as long as possible as she enjoys teaching, but her first
career choice is still to
be a beautician and, but for the accident,
she would not have changed her career.
[21]
Her mobility is still affected by the
sequalae
of
the accident. She says that she can climb stairs, but tend to
compensate. She can climb a ladder, but needs support. Since the
accident she does not wear dresses, due to the scarring on her leg.
She describes her knee as "ugly" as it is puffy.
Under
cross-examination she said that she did suffer from back pain prior
to the accident, but it occurred only occasionally and
did not impact
on her work as a beautician. She said that she only use over the
counter pain medication, as she is careful to use
medication, due to
the family history of addiction. There was some evidence led that she
once was in a car accident and suffered
a whip lash and instituted
action as a result. She denied this, but documents proved otherwise.
There was no evidence led that
this injury had any impact on her
present complaints.
[22]
It seems to be common cause that
Plaintiff could not work for four months after the accident. The
Plaintiff could not explain how
her past loss of income was
calculated, she said that the bookkeeper would be able to assist.
She/he was however never called to
testify and during evidence in
chief no evidence was led to assist the Court in calculating her past
loss of income.
[23]
During cross-examination her bank
statements were perused with her. From these statements it would seem
that during the period from
September 2013 until March 2014 amounts
were deposited that indicated that her gross income was never more
that R5 500-00 per month.
The Plaintiff claimed R31 153-00 for past
loss of income, for the four months that she did not work. During
cross-examination it
was put to her, that she never earned more than
R2 500-00 per month nett. She was unable to give any evidence to
contradict this.
Plaintiff admitted that they rented out the flatlet
from which she ran her business, after the accident for ± R3
000-00
to R4 000-00 per month. In the light of the fact that the
subletting of the flatlet exceeded her nett income, she failed to
prove
any past loss of income.
[24] The
Plaintiffs credibility was attacked, as there were some differences
in what she relayed to the
different experts. These differences she
explained by saying, that they asked different questions and she
merely responded to the
questions. She never read their reports. It
is also not clear why she denied the road accident claim. Despite the
above inconsistencies,
I do not find her version should be rejected.
She generally seemed to be an honest witness and most of her evidence
was supported
by the experts.
[25] Dr
Birrel, the orthopaedic surgeon testified. He and Dr Engelbrecht, the
orthopaedic surgeon appointed
by Defendant signed a joint minute in
which they agreed on the injuries sustained and treatment received.
In the joint minute they
agreed that a total knee replacement will be
required, as well as conservative orthopaedic treatment, and that she
is likely to
retire five. years earlier, that is at 60 years, instead
of 65 years. Dr Engelbrecht, added in a written note, that if she
could
obtain a sedentary position she might be able to work until 65,
but as a teacher she will only be able to work until 60.
[26]
Regarding future medical treatment they
agreed on R585 000-00 for future surgical treatment and R90 000-·00
for future conservative
treatment. They agreed further that
capitalisation be taken into account in relation to the future
surgery, but not in relation
to the conservative therapy.
[27]
Dr Birrel testified and confirmed that a
knee replacement is unavoidable, but Plaintiff is still too young. He
estimated that it
will have to be done approximately 20 years from
now.
[28]
Plaintiff also called Mr Roper a
clinical psychologist. He assessed the Plaintiff in 2015 and found
that she suffered from depression.
He testified that she was a very
active person prior to the accident and her appearance mattered a
great deal to her. The inactivity
and disfigurement that resulted
from the accident, contributed to her depression. He said that the
injuries, and the impact of
it on her life, caused a loss of
identity. The fact that she also experienced marital difficulties,
after the accident and the
fact that her husband moved out of their
bedroom contributed to her depression. She suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) as a result of the accident.
[29]
He testified that despite the fact that
she was molested by her stepfather, she seemed to have coped with it,
but it might have
caused her to be more vulnerable to depression. He
contributed 90% of her psychological impairment to the incident. He
recommended
long term psychotherapy. He recommended 35 sessions at
R900-00 per session, ie. R31 500-00
[30]
Dr Close, a psychiatrist, whose report
is dated 24 March 2016, was also called by Plaintiff to testify. She
diagnosed the Plaintiff
with mood disorder due to the injuries -and
disfigurement, which resulted from the accident. She diagnosed her
with Major Depressive
like Episodes and features of PTSD. She
recommended referral to a psychiatrist to assist with medication and
management of the
diagnosis. According to her report the initial
session would cost R2 500-00. Monthly reviews could cost between R1
000-00 to R2
000-00 per month. In her evidence she limited the period
for treatment to 5 years, and after that to once every six months for
evaluation. She said that since her report fees have increased
considerably to R3 500-00 for the initial consultation and R1 885-00
for the rest of the follow-up consultations.
[31]
She was unaware of the fact that the
Plaintiff was molested as a child, and said that if she was aware of
it, she would have taken
it into consideration and that the Plaintiff
might be more vulnerable to depressive disorders as a result of that.
[32] The
occupational therapist, Ms Macdonald testified that due to the
injuries sustained the Plaintiff
experiences pain and discomfort and
will need certain adapted equipment. She proposed an amount of R36
100-00 in order to acquire
the necessary equipment. The costs and
details of the equipment and frequency of replacement is set out
hereunder.
ASSISTIVE DEVICE CURRENTLY
APPROXIMATE LIFESPAN
APPROXIMATE COSTS (vat
inclusive)
Trolley
5 years
R 1,200.00
Shopping bag on wheels
5 years
R 500.00
High stool
5 years
R 800.00
Low bench
5 years
R 300.00
Lumbar cushion
5 years
R 800.00
Grab rails
Once per home
R 950.00
Non slip bath mat
2 years
R 120.00
Easy reach
5 years
R 200.00
IN THE EVENT OF LOWER LIMB
SURGERY
Forearm crutches
Once
Surgery
R 380.00
[33]
This
was the Plaintiff's case. The Defendants closed their case without
calling any witnesses.
PAST
AND FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME
[34]
It
is trite that Plaintiff carries the onus to prove her case.
[35]
The
Plaintiff did not lead any evidence that could assist the Court in
calculating any past loss of income, the only evidence that
was
before the Court, which was solicited during cross-examination, was
that she never earned more than R2 500-00 nett per month.
However,
they rented out the flat from which she ran her business after the
accident, for between R3 000-00 and R4 000-00 per month.
As a result
no past loss of income was proven.
[36]
The claim for future loss of income was based on the fact that
orthopaedic surgeons agreed that
Plaintiff will probably retire 5
years prior to the normal retirement age of 65.
[37]
Neither
the industrial psychologist, nor the actuaries were called as
witnesses by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's view was, seeing that
the
orthopaedic surgeons agreed on the early retirement, they were not
required to call the IP to testify and they woud for purposes
of the
trial rely on Defendants' actuary's calculation. The actuary of the
Defendant did not testify. Even if one accepts that
Plaintiff will
have to retire five years early, no evidence regarding the
calculation of that loss was led. The question arises
whether the
Plaintiff could under these circumstances merely rely on the
Defendant's actuarial report.
[38]
Mr Kruger (SC) wanted me to accept
scenario 28 of the Defendant's actuarial calculation, but without
evidence from the IP or an
actuary no basis was laid which would have
enabled the court to rely on this evidence.
[39]
The status of a trial bundle which
contains various documents and reports and which is prepared for the
convenience of the Court
was stated by Sutherland J as follows in the
matter of
Thomas v BD Sarens (Pty)
Ltd
[1]
:
[19] Controversy also arose
about reference to documents in the bundle. The almost universal
practice of preparing a bundle of all
the documents that might be
referred to in evidence is
a
boon to orderly
litigation. However, it invariably occurs that not all the documents
in a bundle are traversed in evidence.
In
my view,
a
document
not traversed in evidence is not before the court, unless a prior
agreement exists that it be admitted in
a
fashion
other than through legitimate reference in evidence by a witness
competent to comment thereon. The customary mantra that
'all
documents in the bundle are what they purport to be without anv
admission to the truth of their contents' confers no evidential
status on
a
document
unless it is introduced
through
a
witness
capable of addressing the contents, called by one or other of the
opposing parties .
(See,
eg: Howard
&
Decker Agencies
&
Fourways Estates
(Pty) Ltd v De Sousa 1971(3) SA 937 (T) at 940 F
-
G) The problems
that arise for a litigant who itself cannot adduce evidence about a
document can sometimes be addressed by compelling,
when competent,
a
person under
a
subpoena to
appear and address the document.
Accordingly,
no reliance may be placed on such documentarv material, however
relevant. in the absence of these two methods of adducing
it.
[20] Therefore, where for
example,
a
mine
of data is contained in the bundle that would be most useful in the
cross-examination of
a
given witness who
might testify for the adversary, but that witness is not called,
thereby depriving the cross examiner of the chance
to advance the
case by challenging the absent witness with the data, it is not open
to
a
party,
later in argument, to allude to such material, however relevant it
might be to any issue in dispute."
[Court's
emphasis].
[40]
I
agree with Sutherland J's view and as a result Plaintiff's counsel's
attempt to rely on Defendant's actuary's report must fail.
The high
water mark of the orthopaedic surgeons' agreement was, that the
Plaintiff probably would retire 5 years earlier, but they
could not
assist the Court in determining the loss, if any, that she would
suffer as a result of the early retirement.
[41]
In order to determine the Plaintiff's
post-morbid income, it is essential to indicate how her career
probably would have developed.
No such evidence was led. As a result
of the accident she changed careers and became a teacher, and it
would seem that it was common
cause that as a teacher she would
probably earn more than she would have had as a self-employed beauty
therapist. All of this would
also impact on the calculation regarding
early retirement. In the absence of evidence the Plaintiff did not
succeed in proving
any future loss of income.
FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES
[42]
It is trite that contingencies should be
applied when damages in Circumstance like these are applied and that
both favourable and adverse
contingencies should be taken into
account and in the end it will be left to the discretion of a
judicial officer to exercise a
value judgment in light of the
circumstances of the case
[2]
.
[43]
Regarding future medical expenses Drs
Engelbrecht and Birrel were in agreement tt1at R90 000-00 is
reasonable for conservative treatment
and an amount of R585 000-00
for future surgical treatment. Defendant proposed that a 35%
contingency should be applied to these
amounts.
[44]
Regarding the orthopaedic treatment I am
of the view that a contingency of 10% is reasonable, seeing the
inevitability of her requiring
orthopaedic treatment. The total costs
of orthopaedic treatment is R675 000-00 if 10% contingencies is
allowed it relates to R607
500-00.
[45]
The costs of the equipment prescribed by
the occupational therapist was an amount of R36 ·J0 0-00. In
this instance a higher
contingency is appropriate, as there exists a
bigger possibility that Plaintiff might not need or acquire the
equipment prescribed.
I am of the view that a contingency of 25%
should be applied, which relates to an award of R27 075-00.
[46]
The
clinical psychologist recommended 35 sessions at a cost of R900- 00
per session,resulting in a total amount of R31 500-00 for
such
treatment. The Plaintiff suffers from depression and will need
emotional support by a professional to deal with the sequelae
of the
accident. I also take into account that the molestation by her
stepfather probably contributed to her propensity to depression.
In
this regard I deem a contingency of 10% to be appropriate, which
equates to an amount of R28 350-00.
[47]
The total costs envisaged by Dr Close,
the psychiatrist amount to R123 500-00. In the light of Plaintiff's
aversion to medication
I am of the view that she will most likely
choose not to use medication. The likelihood that she will choose to
see a psychiatrist,
if she gets the support of a psychologist is also
much smaller. In the light thereof a contingency of 45% should be
applied. If
a contingency of 45% is applied the amount equates to R67
925-00.
[48] The total amount
to be awarded for future medical expenses is R730 850-00.
GENERAL
DAMAGES
[49]
It
is trite that general damages falls within the discretion of the
Court and will be awarded after proper consideration is given
to the
circumstances of the particular case.
[50]
The
authorities are clear, a Court shall make an allocation for general
damages
ex aequo et bono.
In
Tsotetsi v Road Accident Fund
[3]
the Court summarized it as follows:
"[14] The court is, when
awarding an amount for the non patrimonial or non-pecuniary
damages (the 'general damages'),
guided by the fundamental principles
which relate to the assessment of these kind of damages. I do not
intend discussing these
principles in detail, suffice to state the
following:
14.1
The age, sex, status, and
relevant physical and psychological characteristics of the plaintiff
may influence the award, eg 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 1
st
Ed on p 144.
14.2
The judge or magistrate 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.
[Court's emphasis]
14.3
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.
14.4
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 169
E-F."
[Court's
emphasis]
[51]
Defendant
with reference to some case law proposed an amount of R250 000-00. A
perusal of these authorities however indicates much
less serious
injuries and
sequelae
and
is in my view not comparable
[4]
.
Plaintiffs counsel during argument contended that an amount of R500
000-00 is appropriate. The Plaintiff referred the Court to
some
authorities that may be relevant and I deal with them hereunder.
[52]
In
Msiza v Road Accident Fund
[5]
the plaintiff suffered the
amputation of a leg above the knee, with lacerations to the scalp.
She was unable to walk as a result
of the amputation, because she did
not have a prosthesis. She used a walking frame to move about. She
lost the ability to do any
type of work and could not perform any
house hold duties. She was awarded R 700 000-00 during 2014, the
equivalent today's almost
R 772 000-00.
[53]
In
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb
[6]
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 R 20 000-00
for general damages
after appeal, the converted value today almost R
1 222 000- 00.
[54]
In
Tsosetsi
[7]
the most serious injury was an open
fracture to the tibia and fibula, with the fracture not united at
trial six years after the
collision. There was a 30% probability of
an amputation taken into account. The plaintiff in this case would in
all probability
never walk without crutches again. He might even need
a prosthesis in future should his leg be amputated. The court awarded
R850
000-00.
[55] I
considered the aforesaid authorities and the Plaintiff's injuries and
the sequelae thereof, as well
as the fact that Plaintiff had to
change careers. I take into consideration that she was disfigured,
and that this caused a loss
of enjoyment of life and identity. I also
take into consideration the fact l11at she is unable to take part in
activities t ha
t she enjoyed and suffers from depression as a result
of all of the above. In the light of all the circumstances I am of
the view
that an amount of R400 000-00 is a reasonable award for
general damages.
[56]
The following amounts are awarded:
Past medical expenses
R 130
000-00
Reconstructive surgery
R 50 000-00
Future medical expenses
R 730 850-00
General damages
R 400 000-00
TOTAL
R1 310 850-00
[57]
An amount of R500 000-00 was already
paid by the Defendant and should accordingly be subtracted from the
aforementioned amount.
[58]
The following order is made.
The Defendants, the one paying
the other to be absolved is ordered to pay:
1.
An
amount of R810 850-00 to the Plaintiff as damages;
2.
The
amount shall bear interest at 10% per annum from 10 days of this
order to date of payment;
3.
The
costs of the action which will include:
The costs of the following
experts (less any amount already paid):
Orthopaedic
surgeon:
Dr DA Birrell
Plastic & reconstructive
surgeon Dr JPM
Pienaar
Occupational therapist
Ms C MacDonald
Clinical psychologist
Mr L Roper
Psychiatrist
Dr M Close
Industrial
psychologist
Dr D Schreuder
Actuary
Dr RJ Koch
R G TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COUR
DATE
OF HEARING:
12 -15 MARCH 2019
DATE
OF JUDGMENT
15 MAY 2019
ATTORNEY
FOR PLAINITFF:
KEMP DE BEER
& GOOSEN
ATTORNEYS
ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINTIFF:
ADV T KRUGER (SC)
ATTORNEY
FOR DEFENDANT:
MARAIS BASSON INC
ADVOCATE
FOR DEFENDANT:
ADV J GREYLING
[1]
(2007/6636) [2012] ZAGPJHC 161 (12 September 2012)
[2]
H v Road Accident Fund 19585/2013 [2016] ZAGPPHC FB4 (15 June 2016)
[3]
(7510/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 463 (1 June 2016)
[4]
Swartz v Raod Accident Fund
2011 JOL 26714
(ECP); Daniles V RAF
2005(5) C&B C3-1; Pieterse v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk
1968 (1E7) QOD 844 (C)
[5]
2014 (7E2 ) QOD Vol
7
[6]
1970 (2E3) QOD 117
A
[7]
(7510/2013) (2016] ZAGPPHC 463 (1 June 2016)