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 471
|
|
Claassens v Road Accident Fund (35716/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 471 (24 July 2019)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED:
YES
/NO
CASE
NO: 35716/2017
24/7/2019
In
the matter between:
FRANCOIS
CLAASSENS
Plaintiff
And
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
Date heard:
10 July 2019
Date
delivered: July 2018
JUDGMENT
SLATER,
AJ
[1]
In
this matter the plaintiff, a 34 year old male, self employed machine
specialist doing business as such under North West Engineering
&
Machine Solutions is claiming damages after a collision in which he
was injured on 21 July 2016. The plaintiff Is presently
employed in
the same capacity as he was at the time of the accident.
[2]
Mr
De Beer, (Counsel for the Plaintiff), Informed the court that the
Issue of liability has been disposed of on the basis, that
the
defendant Is liable to pay 60% of plaintiff's proven and/ or agreed
damages. The issue of future medical expenses has been
settled by the
defendant offering an undertaking in terms of
section 17{4)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
, as amended. The issue of past
medical expenses is to be postponed sine die.
[3]
The
issues for determination by this court are the amount to be awarded
to the Plaintiff in respect of his claim for general damages,
the
amount to be awarded to the Plaintiff In respect of his past loss of
earnings/income and the amount to be awarded to the Plaintiff
in
respect of his future loss of earnings/income and earning capacity.
[4]
Counsel for the plaintiff, for the purposes of clarity, confirmed
with the Court that
the following Bundles were present in the Court
file; Index to Pleadings - Bundle 'A'; Index to RAF Bundle - Bundle
'B'; Index
to Merits Bundle - Bundle 'C'; Index to Plaintiff Expert
Bundle - Bundle 'D'; Index to Defendant Expert Bundle - Bundle 'E';
Index
to Joint Minute Bundle - Bundle 'F'; Index to Photo's Bundle
and Minutes of a further Pre-trial Conference held on 24 April 2019.
In Bundle "F", the following joint minutes were available:
4.1
Joint minute between the Orthopaedic
Surgeons;
4.2
Joint minute between Occupational
Therapists;
4.3
Joint Minute between Neurosurgeons;
4.4
Joint minute between the Industrial
Psychologists.
4.5
Calculations Prima Actuaries and
Consultants.
[5]
Counsel for Plaintiff, referred the Court to the signed PreTrial
Minute of the parties,
dated 24 April 2019, more specifically
paragraph 14.6 thereof, the effect of which is to confirm that the
Defendant admits ALL
Plaintiff expert reports, where no Defendant
counterpart has been appointed. Accordingly, in respect of Bundle
'D', the expert
reports of Dr Berkowitz (Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgeon); Dr Kirstein (Pulmonologist); Dr Botha (Specialist Surgeon);
Dr Roper
(Clinical Psychologist); and H Regenass (Forensic Auditor)
are admitted.
[6]
In
the Particulars of Claim at paragraphs 6 and 7 the Plaintiff alleged
as follows:
"6.
As a result of the aforementioned collision, the Plaintiff suffered
the following serious
injuries as contemplated by
Section 17(1)
of
the Act:
6.1
Blunt abdominal trauma;
6.2
Laparotomy for spleen laceration;
6.3
Abrasions and open wounds;
6.4
Severe Head injury;
6.5
Injury to the neck;
6.6
Polytrauma injury to the left lung;
6.7
Left rib fractures;
6.8
Injury to right foot;
6.9
Injury to the left leg;
6.10
Injury to the left shoulder;
6.11
Injury to the spinal cord;
6.12
Injury to the eye".
7.
As a result of the aforementioned
injuries:
7.1
The Plaintiff was hospitalized and
underwent physiotherapy as well as medical treatment;
7.2
The Plaintiff will have to be
hospitalized and undergo physiotherapy as well as medical treatment
in the future;
7.3
The Plaintiff has in the past and will
continue in the future to suffer a loss of income ALTERNATIVELY the
Plaintiff suffered from
a loss of ability to earn and will in the
future suffer from a loss of ability to earn;
7.4
The Plaintiff experienced pain,
discomfort ad suffering and will in the future also experience pain,
discomfort and suffering;
7.5
The Plaintiff suffered from emotional
shock and trauma and will in the future also suffer from emotional
shock and trauma;
7.6
The Plaintiff suffered from a loss of
the joy and enjoyment of life and will in the future suffer from the
loss of the joy and enjoyment
of life".
[7]
Counsel
for Plaintiff Informed the Court that the nature and extent of
Plaintiff's injuries and the effect and the duration of Plaintiff's
disabilities as a result of the collision In question, appear more
fully from the expert report of Dr Kruger (Neurosurgeon), dated
9
June 2017, at sub-paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2, pages 118 and 119 of
Bundle 'D' as follows:
"13.1
Injury diagnosis:
1.
The
claimant was involved as the driver of his own bakkie in a motor
vehicle accident.
2.
Moderate-severe closed head injury.
3.
Multiple cuts and abrasions to the body.
4.
Blunt chest trauma, with multiple rib
fractures on the left-hand side resulting in a flail chest.
5.
Lung contusions, pneumothorax on the
left-hand side.
6.
Blunt abdominal trauma resulting in a
ruptured diaphragm on the left hand side, as well as a
laceration to the spleen.
7.
Soft-tissue lumbar back injury.
8.
Lung infection developed in the
intensive care unit at Netcare Milpark Private Hospital.
13.2
Outcome Diagnosis:
1.
Chronic Headaches.
2.
Sequelae of traumatic brain injury, with
loss of short-term memory.
3.
Chronic chest-pain, aggravated by
physical activity and by coughing.
4.
Severe surgical scarring of the abdomen.
5.
Chronic lumbar backache, aggravated by
physical activity, associated with radicular pain in both legs.
6.
Altered ability to work in the open
labour market.
[8]
The
parties agreed that it was common cause that the Plaintiff suffered a
severe injury to the head. Defendant disputed that the
Plaintiff
suffered an injury to his neck and an injury to his left shoulder.
[9]
The
parties agreed that the issues in dispute were to be determined by
the Court on the evidence contained in the various expert
reports
filed by the Plaintiff and in respect of the Joint Minutes of the
various experts filed by the parties, and that oral evidence
was to
be led in respect of certain relevant expert reports.
GENERAL
DAMAGES:
EVIDENCE
DURING THE TRIAL:
[10]
Counsel for Plaintiff called one expert
witness namely Dr Mare (Orthopaedic Surgeon). Defendant called no
witnesses. The report
of the expert witness, Dr Mare, dated 26 May
2017 is found in the Bundle 'D' - Index to Plaintiff Expert Bundle at
pages 1-12 and
in Bundle 'F' - Index to Joint Minute Bundle, dated 21
May 2019 at pages 3-7.
[11]
Counsel for Plaintiff, referred Dr Mare
to paragraph 2 of his report (page 4 - Bundle 'D'), under the heading
"INJURIES SUSTAINED",
my
translation.
Dr Mare, confirmed that
Plaintiff had sustained a head injury - plaintiff was not conscious
of what was going on around him and
had a cut on the back of his
head; Plaintiff had serious chest injuries with multiple rib
fractures; plaintiff had no serious injuries
or fractures to his
upper limbs, only a small cut on his hand; Plaintiff's diaphragm was
ruptured and his spleen burst; spinal
injury - his lower back is
painful since the collision; he had no serious injuries to his lower
limbs. Under the heading "TREATMENT
RECEIVED", Dr Mare
confirmed that Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Brits Medi-clinic,
where he was stabilized and the following
morning, he was transferred
by ambulance to the Milpark Hospital, where he was admitted to the
intensive care unit. He had intercostal
drain in his chest, was
deeply sedated, intubated and was on a respirator. He underwent a
large abdominal operation where his spleen
was surgically removed,
amongst other procedures. He was in the ICU for approximately 1 to 1
Y2 months, a few hours in high care
and then transferred to the
general ward for approximately 2 weeks. Under the heading, "PRESENT
COMPLAINTS", Dr Mare
confirmed at paragraph 4.1, page 5, that at
times plaintiff has neck stiffness and neck pain. He did not complain
of any nerve
damage; 4.2, page 6, his back is at times painful. This
occurs when he stands for long periods or if he stands in
uncomfortable
positions. He must then stretch and move to reduce the
pain. On some mornings he wakes up with lower back pain and after a
hard
day's work he is often in discomfort in the evenings; 4.3, page
6, sometimes he experiences sharp pain In his left shoulder, but
this
is seldom. He does not complain of any further pain in his arms; 4.4,
page 6, he had a number of previous knee injuries from
playing rugby.
The collision did not aggravate the injuries further. Under the
heading "PREVIOUS", Paragraph 5, page
6, Dr Mare confirmed
Plaintiff reported that prior to the collision he never suffered from
back and neck pain.
[12]
Counsel for the Plaintiff, referred Dr
Mare to his Investigation at paragraph 9, page 7, more particularly
to 9.2, under the heading
"SPINAL", where Dr Mare confirmed
his finding at 9.2(b), that Plaintiff had normal mobility of both the
cervical and
lumbar spine. At 9.3(b), page 8, Dr Mare again confirmed
a finding that Plaintiff had sub-acromial pain of the left shoulder.
He
explained that this is in effect is mechanical pain, which will
influence the injury by aggravating existing pain and affect
productivity,
should the Plaintiff be In a position where he
undertakes heavy work.
[13]
Counsel for Plaintiff, referred Dr Mare
to his summary of the Radiological Investigation conducted by Drs
Lamprecht, Vogel and Partners
and, Dr Mare confirmed his summary of
the injuries in his report as follows: Left shoulder - early
degeneration In the left acromio-clavicular
joint; cervical - there
is paravertebral joint fusion of C2/3, which may have been
post-traumatic. Mr De-Beer referred Dr Mare
to the Index to Merits
Bundle - Bundle 'C', pages 46, 47, 49 & SO, which comprised
photographs of the damage caused to Plaintiff's
vehicle in the
collision. Mr De Beer asked Dr Mare if the Plaintiffs injuries
sustained in the accident were compatible having
regard to the damage
caused to Plaintiff's vehicle In the collision, to which Dr Mare
answered in the affirmative, further saying
that the collision would
have caused a severe whiplash to the spine (a rotational injury),
where the plaintiff was knocked from
the side which would have caused
him to be thrown about in the cab of the vehicle, impact his shoulder
with the side of the car
causing trauma to his acromio-clavicular
joint.
[14]
Dr Mare was then referred to the
Radiological Report at page 12 of his expert report and to comment on
the findings contained in
such report. Dr Mare commented as follows
In respect of the findings conducted by Ultrasound of the Left
Shoulder, more specifically
In regard to the findings relevant to the
Acromio-Clavicular joint
of
degenerative osteo-arthritic changes noted with bulging of capsule.
Plaintiff Is too young for such changes in the acromio-clavicular
joint and accordingly the changes are in his
view
traumatic and therefore accident
related. In regard to the Sub deltold/subacromial bursa, which
findings suggested had thickened
with an AP diameter of 3.4 mm
(normalS2mm) ... sonographic Image in keeping with
subdeltoid/subacromial bursitis, Dr Mare commented
that such injury
almost always ends in surgery. After 3 months where bursa is
enlarged, injecting cortisone ls not a cure for this
and the bursa
will become impinged, causing severe shoulder pain. Post-Traumatic
degeneration will increase in time and in respect
of the Plaintiff
there will be rapid degeneration due to the hard labour in the nature
of his work. The risk of rapid degeneration
is far greater with the
kind of labour the Plaintiff is exposed to. Referring to paragraph
5.2, page 10, under the heading "SURGICAL
TREATMENT", Dr
Mare is of the opinion that an excision of the acromio-clavicular
joint might be necessary in the next 10 years
and even suggests that
this surgical procedure be undertaken immediately to relieve the
symptoms and pain. He however opines that
this symptomology cannot be
cured and that should such surgical excision be performed, Plaintiff
will present with a lack of power.
[15]
Counsel for Plaintiff referred Dr Mare
to his addendum report pages 214- 215 and the attached Radiology
report of Drs Oosthuizen
& Engelbrecht, dated 11 April 2019, page
215A and requested him to comment thereon with specific reference to
the finding in
the radiology report under the heading, "CERVICAL
SPINE WITH STRESS", that at line 3,
"there
is a bone fragment posterior to the spiny processes of C2 and C3.
This may indicate a fracture and non-union of the
fracture fragment".
Dr Mare opined that the bone
fragment, posterior would have application to one's turning of the
head, where the rotational part
is fused. That the stress on the
rotation of C2/C3 would place more stress on his mobility and could
then cause C3/C4 degeneration.
He supported his opinion with
reference to paragraph 5.2, page 10, under the heading, "CERVICAL",
by stating that in
his opinion there is a 10% to 15% chance that a
further surgical fusion will need to be done, which when done could
cause Plaintiff
to lose rotation in his neck. He prefaced this by
stating that where there is a 33% chance of an individual of having
surgery to
the neck, that person could lose 60/700/oof his neck
rotation.
[16]
Having regard to Plaintiff's
employability, paragraph 6, page 11, he opined that the prognosis of
sequelae of the neck and shoulder
injuries would in the intervening
time worsen, as Plaintiff at present does heavy hand work. He will
need to move to work of a
less physical nature to protect his neck
and shoulder. If he can transition to more administrative work in the
future, he may have
to undergo 5 year's early retirement. This is
only applicable to his orthopaedic injuries. His quality of life and
enjoyment of
life has decreased considerably and, he already suffers
pain and discomfort which will further increase over time. His
quality
of life will decrease owing to the degenerative processes in
his neck.
[17]
Counsel for Plaintiff, finally referred
Dr Mare to the Orthopaedic Surgeons' Joint Minute In The Index to
Joint Minute Bundle -
Bundle 'F' page 1-7. Dr Mare confirmed that the
experts agreed
that it was a high
velocity, serious collision between a truck and the claimant's bakkie
and that the Plaintiff was seriously injured
with injuries including
a head injury, brain contusion, with serious chest and abdomen
injuries. His injuries were serious and
life threatening and, his
orthopaedic injuries were a neck injury, lower back injury and
shoulder injury (A/C joint). The experts
agreed Plaintiff works as a
fitter and turner which requires him to handle heavy items and
working at a bench semi stooped. He
could not do any work
for
6
months post accident. He has
now returned to the same work but requires help with heavy objects.
He had to appoint help. He
suffers lower back and neck pain while he
works. He suffers from cramps and pins and needles in his legs at
times. He suffers from
cervical headaches from his neck upwards. Dr
Mare opines that Plaintiff also suffers from shoulder pain from his
post-traumatic
degeneration and that surgery to the A/C joint may be
unavoidable. Dr Blignaut disagrees, states no surgery is indicated to
the
left shoulder and Plaintiff will require conservative treatment,
for which R30 000 must be provided. Dr Mare agrees with this. Having
regard to the spinal injuries, Dr Mare opines that neck x-rays show a
fractured spinal process which indicates a serious injury.
There is
still loose bone fragment and there is post-traumatic fusion between
C2 and C3. Dr Blignaut disagrees
-
no
radiological evidence
of
instability or fractures of the C2/C3
cervical spine noted. Dr Mare agrees that there is no instability but
is of the opinion that
the rigidity/over stability shown by the
radiological report will cause stress to the lower movement and if
you do undergo surgery,
this will again, decrease mobility in the
lower back. Having regard to the lower back injury, Dr Mare stated
that according to
literature a spinal injury which is still painful
after 3 years has a 30% chance of eventually needing surgery and this
is the
case of Plaintiff's lower back. Dr Blignaut disagrees being
of
the opinion that there is
no
radiological evidence of any post
degeneration or instability. Dr Mare counteracts this by the fact
that plaintiff is still complaining
of mechanical pain after 2 years
post-accident.
CROSS EXAMINATION
[18]
Under cross examination by Counsel for
Defendant, Mr Bukaba, Dr Mare confirmed that he initially assessed
plaintiff on 26 May 2017
and his findings are those contained in his
report at pages 1-12 in Bundle 'D'. Counsel for Defendant questioned
if there was in
fact an injury to the neck, to which Dr Mare
responded that the head Is attached to the neck, and the injury
caused to the neck
was a stretching Injury on the ligaments of the
neck. In high velocity impact collisions, where there is a blow to
the head, as
was the case here, you can assume that there will be a
neck injury due to the violence caused by the blow to the head.
Further,
Dr Mare gave testimony that in his teachings and what he had
been taught, on neck injuries, where there is a serious blow to the
head, there Is a neck injury unless otherwise proven. Further, he
testified that in Global teachings where there was a moderate
to
severe head injury, there was a neck injury, if there are no
radiological complaints after 2 years. Counsel for Defendant referred
Dr Mare to his addendum report at pages 212 to 215, together with
attachment at 215A, where he had reported that follow-up
investigations
had be done on 11 April 2019 to monitor changes,
especially degeneration to the cervical spine and the x-rays had
shown minimal
further degeneration, if any, as was expected. In
explanation Dr Mare testified that he agreed there had been no
further degeneration,
but that there was proof of injury in the
initial report. It could be seen from the x-rays that the injury did
not or did to a
limited extent degenerate during the period
2016/2017.
REDIRECT
[19]
Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that It
was common cause that the plaintiff had suffered the injuries and
sequelae of such injuries
in the collision in question. That it was
clear from the evidence, that an injury to the neck had been caused
by a high velocity
side impact collision and owing to the nature of
the collision the back rest in the vehicle would not have cushioned
the plaintiff's
neck from the impact. The neck injury was accordingly
compatible with the nature of a high velocity side impact collision.
Further,
defendant had failed to call its expert and accordingly the
evidence of Dr Mare must stand as incontrovertible.
ANALYSIS:
[20]
Having regard to the dispute surrounding
the neck injury and lower back injury, and after having recourse to
the testimony of Dr
Mare and the joint minute of the Orthopaedic
Surgeons, this Court finds that plaintiff, In addition to his other
serious injuries
and sequelae also sustained an injury to the neck
and lower back. In assessing the amount to be awarded to the
plaintiff for general
damages all the reports contained in Index to
Plaintiff Expert Bundle - Bundle 'D'; Index to Joint Minute Bundle -
Bundle 'F';
Index to Merit Bundle - Bundle ' C' (Item 6) and the
expert evidence of Dr Mare (Orthopaedic Surgeon) were considered.
[21]
In casu, the nature and extent of the
Plaintiff's injuries and sequelae, his pain and suffering; and loss
of amenities are life
are well documented in the various medical
reports and joint minutes of the experts, all of which reports have
been admitted by
the Defendant. The parties further agreed that save
for the oral evidence to be led in respect of the dispute surrounding
the neck
and shoulder injury, the issues in dispute were to be
determined on the evidence contained in the various experts' reports
filed
by both the Plaintiff and Defendant and the experts' joint
minutes filed by the parties. Counsel for Plaintiff further submitted
in amplification of the seriousness of Plaintiff's injuries, that in
addition the Plaintiff's injuries documented in the various
medical
reports and the joint minutes of expert, (all of which injuries and
sequelae were admitted by the Defendant and, therefore
common cause
between the parties}, the evidence of Dr Mare & Dr Blignaut
(Joint Orthopaedic Minute pages 3-7-
Bundle 'F'),
documents that "that
it was a high velocity serious collision between a truck and the
plaintiff's bakkie. That Plaintiff was
seriously injured with
injuries including a head injury, brain contusion, with serious chest
and abdomen injuries. That the injuries
were serious and life
threatening. He was treated in ICU for a month and a half. His
orthopaedic injuries were a neck Injury, lower
back injury and
shoulder injury (A/C joint). The evidence of
W
Van Der Walt (Plaintiff's occupational therapist at paragraph 4 on
page 17 - Bundle 'D'),
under the
heading, "COMPLAINTS", where it was repeated that Plaintiff
sometimes suffers from neck, back and shoulder pain,
he has headaches
once or twice a week, his legs go numb, he has pain over his ribs on
the left with deep breathing, stretching
and when assuming certain
positions, he sometimes struggles to maintain his concentration. The
evidence of Dr Berkowitz
(Plastic and
Reconstruction Surgeon at page 46 - Bundle 'D'),
there
is a horizontal scar measuring 40mm x 20mm on the lateral aspect of
the left hemithorax. The scar is a result of the placement
of the
intercostal drain and there is an unsightly left paramedian
laparotomy scar measuring 280mm x 30mm with wide cross hatching.
These scars are amenable to improvement by means of surgical
revision. The evidence of Dr Botha
(Specialist
Physician, pages 98- 104 -Bundle 'D'),
he
sustained a significant head injury with evidence of cerebral oedema,
he had an intercranial pressure monitor inserted as part
of the
treatment and monitoring of a severe diffuse heady injury, he now
reports symptoms that can be considered sequelae of a
primary diffuse
and possibly secondary anoxic head injury, he sustained rib fractures
on the left side and intercostal drainage
was performed on the left
side as part of the treatment of trauma to the left side of his body.
He has recovered from the chest
wall and lung trauma. He sustained a
ruptured spleen which was surgically removed, the result of which Is
now without a functioning
spleen he is at risk to develop infection
with encapsulated organisms and loss of immunity against these
organisms is permanent
and provision should be made for treatment and
prevention of bacterial infections i.e he has essentially lost his
immune system,
meaning that he will have to guard against risks of
Infection. This would limit his working at night which pre
accident he
could have worked at any time. Further, he has plans to
work and visit countries higher up in Africa which would place him at
risk
of infection. He would need to carefully follow a vaccination
schedule to prevent this. He should not perform physical work that
would place him at increased risk to rupture his laparotomy scar. The
evidence of Dr Kirsten
(Pulmonologist,
pages 54M94
-
Bundle
'D'),
his sedation was only weaned
4-5 weeks later. He sustained a head injury, burst spleen which had
to be surgically removed, torn
diaphragm, left ribs all broken,
Injury to the right hip (muscle is indented) and multiple
lacerations. He was treated in the ICU
of Mllpark Hospital and on
admission his GCS was 5/15. At page 70, he suffered a restriction of
his lung capacity. His injuries
and sequelae thereof are listed on
page 81 as, head injury with cerebral oedema and loss of
consciousness, blunt chest injury with
multiple left sided rib
fractures (2"d to 9th), a small left pneumothorax with left
sided lung contusion, ruptured diaphragm,
ruptured spleen, soft
tissue Injury to the right hip, multiple lacerations (a CT chest
dated 1/08/2016 noted the development of
pulmonary emboll). He
underwent the following procedures: right frontal burr hole to
monitor intracranial pressures, a laparotomy
to do a splenectomy and
repair the ruptured diaphragm, an intercostal drain was inserted on
the left, the various lacerations were
sutured, he was ventilated
from the day of the accident until he was extubated on 07/08/2016
(after 17 days). At the
Addendum to
Dr Kirstein's report, pages 87-89,
he
sets out the risks of serious Infection, changes after a splenectomy,
the definition of the spleen and splenectomy, long-term
complications
after abdominal surgery and what is scar tissue. The evidence of Dr
Roper
(Clinical Psychologist, pages
122
-
166
-
Bundle
'D'),
indicates Plaintiff sustained
a direct impact to the occipital region of his cranium, he suffered
post-traumatic amnesia for approximately
4 weeks following the
accident and that after he had regained awareness of his surroundings
In hospital post-accident he had been
confused for about 1-2 weeks;
he suffered altered levels of consciousness
(the
hospital records note that he recorded a
GCS
score of 2/10 and 3/15 on 22 July
2016 with saturation levels of
92%.
From 22 July to 28 July he is
described as stuporous. Apathetic on 31 July and
6
August and alert on 3 and 11 August
2016. On 11 August 2016 the diagnosis
of
a head injury, cerebral oedema and a
diaphragm injury is noted. He recorded a
GCS
of 15/15 with saturation levels of
91% on 11 August 2016).
He sustained
a
severe head injury
as
a result of the accident. injuries of this nature are expected to
result in significant persistent neuropsychological sequelae.
Dr
Roper describes the PTSD diagnosis at pages 156-165 of his report.
The evidence of Dr Kruger
(Neurosurgeon,
pages 107-119 - Bundle 'D'),
deals
with the events following the accident at pages 109-110, noting that
Plaintiff sustained the following injuries, head injury
with loss of
consciousness, blunt chest trauma, with multiple rib fracture on the
left hand side, lung contusions and a pneumothorax
on the left-hand
side, blunt abdominal trauma, with ruptured diaphragm, as well as
lacerations to the spleen and multiple abrasions
to the body. The
claimant sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.
[22]
Counsel for defendant submitted that a
severe head Injury does not calculate to a severe brain injury and
that the authority to
a large extent deals with the case in casu.
[23]
The Plaintiff has claimed an amount of
R1'400'000 in respect of general damages. In
PROTEA
INSURANCE COMPANY v LAMB 1971(1) SA530 (A) at 534H and ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND v MARUNGA 2003(5) SA 164(SCA) at 23
it
was stated that a claim for general damages comprises of pain and
suffering, disfigurement, permanent disability and loss of
amenities
of life.
[24]
In
SOUTHERN
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LIMITED v BAILEY N.O. 1984(1) at 99H,
the
following was stated:
"The AD has never
attempted to lay down rules as to the way in which the problem of and
award of general damages should be
approached. The accepted approach
is the flexible one described in Sandler v Wholesale Coal Suppliers
Ltd
1941 AD 194
at 199, namely: "the amount to be awarded as a
compensation can only be determined by the broadest general
considerations
and the figure arrived at must necessarily be
uncertain depending on the Judge's view of what is fair in all the
circumstances
of the case". To adopt a different approach (in
casu, it was contended that the "functional approach"
should be
adopted, le the approach according to which damages for
non-pecuniary Joss may be justified only to the extent that they
might
effectively be employed to provide the plaintiff with a
reasonable solace for his misfortunes) might result in injustice of
the
kind referred to in Um Pooh Choo v Camden and Islington Area
Health Authority
[1979] 2ALL ER 910
[HL] at 919. This does not mean,
of course that the function to be served by an award of damages
should be excluded from consideration.
That is something which may be
taken into account together with all the other circumstances".
[25]
The
Plaintiff's counsel referred to the following cases in support of an
award of R1,4 million:
PARITY INSURANCE CO LTD v HILL
1965 (112) QOD 680 (A)
("Hill")wherein
the court awarded the Plaintiff a sum of R18'000 (£9000)
reduced to R13'000 (£6'500). The
said amount updated is
equivalent to R1'154'000. The plaintiff a forty year old married
woman has as a result of a head-on motor
collision, sustained (a)
obstruction of her breathing caused by the stoving in of her chest
and the fracture of four ribs; the
left lung was collapsed and there
was a severe emphysema over her chest; (b) a neck injury due to
unilateral dislocation between
the sixth and seventh cervical
vertebrae causing the first vertebrae to be displaced; (c) several
fractures and chipping of the
left ankle and foot, necessitating a
triple-arthrodesis of the foot; damage to the knee cap necessitating
an operation to remove
the parts affected; (d) loss of two teeth
necessitating replacement by a dental plate; (e) pain in the right
arm and numbness in
her right hand due to nerve root irritation in
the cervical spine; the pain in the arm would disappear but the
position in regard
to the numbness was less certain and (f) a
temporary ocular disability.
FOUCHE, J v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
(In the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, heard
on 15/05/2017; judgment of
Strijdom Al, delivered on 16/08/2017)
("Fouche")
wherein the court awarded the Plaintiff a sum of R1'4 00'000 . The
said amount updated is equivalent to R1'543'053.
The plaintiff a
thirty four year old woman has as a result of a collision, sustained:
(a) multiple facial fractures; (b) Le
forte 3 fracture; (c)
fracture of the mandible; (d) fracture of the nose; (e) loss of
teeth; (f) contusion to the chest; (g) blunt
abdominal trauma; (h)
laceration of the spleen; (i) laceration of the liver; (j) fracture
of the mid shaft of the left femur;
(k) a compound fracture of
the left tibia; (I) a compound fracture of the right radius and ulna;
(m) a fracture of the right ankle;
(n) a fracture of the clavicle;
(o) a moderate to severe concussive brain injury.
[26]
Counsel for the Defendant submitted that
the court should award the Plaintiff an amount of R500'000 in respect
of general damages.
He relied on the following cases:
NONKWALI v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND 2010
(6l2) QOD 27 (ECM)
wherein
the court awarded the Plaintiff a sum of R500'000. The said amount
updated is equivalent to R837'000. The plaintiff a unemployed
female
in possession of a three year teaching diploma has as a result of a
collision, sustained the following Injuries: a pelvic
ring disruption
involving her left inferior pubic ramus, pubic symphysis and left
sacra-iliac joint, a closed fracture of the midshaft
of her left
humerus, a closed fracture of the mid shaft of her right tibia,
a subluxation C2 on C3, not associated with spinal
cord or nerve root
damage and fractures of her fifth, sixth and seventh left ribs. She
also sustained a head injury with a compound
fracture of the left
parietal bone which was found to be a traumatic brain injury of at
least moderate severity with accompanying
diffuse axonal damage.
SEBATJANE & ANOTHER v
FEDERATED INSURANCE COMPANT
LIMITED 1989 (4H2) QOD 1 (T)
wherein the
court awarded the Plaintiff a sum of R6'000. The said amount updated
is equivalent to R460'000. The plaintiff was a
boy aged 7 at the time
of the accident and as a result of the collision, sustained the
following injuries: Traumatic blow to the
abdomen causing ruptures of
the spleen and the liver laparotomy performed and drain inserted Into
the abdomen for removal of a
large volume of accumulated blood, and
blood transfusion given. Very ill post operatively. Drain removed
about 9 days after the
operation. Risk of adhesions and consequential
internal obstructions following laparotomy and requiring further
surgery at only
5% but should this happen the consequences could be
catastrophic. Nightmares and insomnia after discharge from hospital.
Able to
return to strenuous sport after about a year. Blow to the
head and minor bruises but these of no importance.
CHETTY v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
2012 (6J2) QOD 115 (KZD)
wherein
the court awarded the Plaintiff a sum of R600'000. The said amount
updated is equivalent to R869'000. The plaintiff was
a male student
aged 19 at the time of the accident and as a result of the collision,
sustained the following multiple injuries:
injury to the left side of
the chest with Intrusion of air into the plural cavity between the
lungs and the ribcage (a left haem
ot horax) . This had to be drained
by cardiothoraclc surgeon and healed with permanent scarring.
Abdominal injuries which required
surgery by a general surgeon and,
which involved also the removal of a ruptured spleen. Fracture of the
right femur which required
surgery by an orthopaedic surgeon
involving an ORIF. Brain injury In the nature of a high velocity
Injury, causing the brain to
impact inside the skull causing what is
commonly referred to as a diffuse brain injury. One of the results of
the brain injury
included excessive ossification of the left elbow.
The neurosurgeon who treated the Plaintiff explained that the
severity of the
brain Injury resulted in, what he described as a
outpouring of adrenalin and other chemical agents. Where, at the same
time, the
patient in such a case also has suffered a fracture and in
particular if the plaintiff Is rendered immobile, this causes
excessive
bony formation at the locality of the fracture site which
can even penetrate the surrounding muscle resulting in a condition
called
myositis ossificans. That is what occurred In the case of the
patient, with the result that he is left with permanent stiffness
of
the left elbow, with loss of function of the left upper limb. In
addition, there is also a degree of myositis ossification at
the
fracture site in the right thigh, with some pressure symptoms
suggesting the possible future need for surgical intervention.
Plaintiff left with a complex combination of neuropsychological
deficits, some of which are quite subtle, but all of which in
combination have a devastating impact on his interpersonal
relationships, his ability to follow a career or even just to earn a
living, as well as upon the quality and enjoyment of life.
[27]
In casu the nature and extent of
Plaintiff's pain and suffering; and loss of amenities of life are
well documented in the various
medical reports and joint minutes. It
is unequivocally stated that it was a high velocity serious collision
between a truck and
the plaintiff's bakkle. That Plaintiff was
seriously injured with injuries including a head injury, brain
contusion, with serious
chest and abdomen injuries. That the injuries
were serious and life threatening. He was treated in ICU for a month
and a half.
His orthopaedic injuries were a neck injury, lower back
Injury and shoulder injury (A/C joint), more importantly he suffered
a
severe Injury to the head/brain. In the cases referred to above by
the Counsel for Defendant, the injured did not suffer a severe
head/brain injury, as in casu, notwithstanding the seriousness of
their Injuries. The case of
'Nonkwale'
makes mention of a moderate to
severe brain injury, whereas no brain injury is mentioned in the case
of
'Sebatjane'
and
the head/brain Injury in
'Chetty'
is
not categorised.
[28]
The above having been said, I am mindful
of the caution in
DE JONG v PISANIE
N.O.
2005 (5) SA 547
(SCA)
at
paragraph 60 wherein the court after noting the tendency towards
increased awards in respect of general damages in recent times
was
readily perceptible, the court re-affirmed conservatism as one of the
multiple factors to be taken into account when awarding
damages. The
court concluded that the principle remained that the ward should be
fair to both sides, it must give just compensation
to the plaintiff,
but not pour out largesse from the horn of plenty at the defendant's
expense, as pointed out in
PITT v
ECONOMIC INSURANCE CO LTD 1975(3) SA 264 (N) at 267.
[29]
On the issue of awarding quantum the
court has a wide discretion to award what it considers to be fair and
adequate compensation
to the injured party. It has been said that
there Is no hard and fast rule of general application requiring a
court to consider
past awards. It is generally accepted that it would
be difficult to find a case on all fours with the one being heard and
that
the awards in decided cases should be considered only as a guide
of how other courts arrived at an award. See
PROTEA
INSURANCE COMPANY v LAMB
above at
535H
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND v MARUNGA
at
paragraph [23].
[30]
In conclusion there is no doubt that
Plaintiff sustained severe and life threatening injuries as a
result of the accident.
Furthermore, the pain and loss of amenities
suffered by the plaintiff are overwhelmingly stated in the experts'
medical reports
and the experts' joint minutes, on which there is no
dispute. Having regard to the above in my opinion an award of
R1,
200 000
would be fair and
appropriate compensation in relation to the general damages.
PAST LOSS OF EARNINGS:
[31]
The Plaintiff's loss of earnings since
the collision and his future loss of earning capacity have been
calculated by Prima Actuaries
and Consultants (Pty) Ltd as at 21 May
2019. The basis of the calculation and the assumptions made were
undisputed and not counter-attacked.
The value of past income
uninjured is R857 590. The Actuary applied a contingency deduction of
5% and that resulted to the net
value of past uninjured income being
R814 711. The value of past income injured has been calculated at
RS68 718. Taking into consideration
the two figures above, the net
loss in respect of past income is
R245
993.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME:
[32]
The Plaintiff must prove that he will
probably suffer financial loss or diminution of his income. In
SANDLER v WHOLESALE COAL SUPPLIERS
LTD 1941 (A) 194,
It was stated that
"It is no doubt
exceedingly difficult to value the damage in terms of money, but that
does not relieve the court of the duty
of doing so upon the evidence
placed before it. This is a principle which has been acted on in
several cases in South African Courts".
[33]
In RUDMAN v
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) at para [11],
the
Court said:
"There must be proof that
the reduction In earning capacity indeed gives rise to pecuniary
loss".
THE EVIDENCE
OF MS N KOTZE AND MSC DU TOIT/A VAN DER WESTHUIZEN (INDUSTRIAL
PSYCHOLOGIST) - JOINT MINUTE:
[34]
Post-accident he could not work for 4-5
months suffering a direct loss of income. He also suffered an
indirect loss of Income as
his business was still in a start -up
phase, with his absence slowing down start up growth.
[35]
At the time of the accident he was
self-employed as the owner of North West Engineering and Machine
Solutions. He started this business
a mere 6 months prior to the
accident.
[36]
Considering the expert reports available
to us it is evident that Plaintiff has been compromised by the
accident In question and
he Is not suited to all aspects of his
current self-employed activities. The experts note that Plaintiff has
already employed a
labourer to assist him with heavier work NK at a
rate of R3 500 per month, CDT/AVOW noted his has additional expenses
for staff,
but this amount was not quantified.
[37]
Considering deterioration expected by Dr
Mare, experts note that he would become more and more reliant on
assistance and they accept
that he would have to appoint another
semi-skilled assistant rather than a labourer, who would be able to
assist him better than
a labourer and perform some of the heavier
tasks without Plaintiff's assistance. When he reaches that point, he
would have to pay
such semi-skilled worker at least on par with tl:1e
current R6 000 per month paid to a semi-skilled assistant. CDT/AVDW
agree that
this guideline on earnings may be appropriate but also
note that the cost of a semi-skilled assistant will be dependent on
the
nature of the business/operational needs. They also recommend
annual inflationary increase should be accounted for.
[38]
ADVW notes the findings of Dr Mare
Indicating Plaintiff should realign to do light physical work with
intermittent sitting. She
noted that he needs left shoulder surgery
in 10 years' time and hence recommends that he should realign his
work to avoid medium
to heavy tasks. If he then has to realign his
work in 10 years' time to avoid medium to heavy tasks, a semi-skilled
worker would
no longer suffice and he would in all probability
appoint a skilled artisan to take over the majority of his duties,
with him merely
managing the business and liaising with clients. It
Is then accepted that he will have to employ such skilled artisan at
NK a rate
more or less on par with the median notch of salaries
Indicated by Robert Koch for artisan/tradesman (R178 000 per annum)
as he
would not be able to do the majority of his tasks as
machinist/artisan ... As such his loss in terms of an assistant would
then
be the semi-skilled worker at R6 000 per month plus inflationary
increases but this would increase in about 10 years' time to a
current amount of about R178 000 per annum. CDT/ADVW agree that this
guideline on earnings may be appropriate but also note that
the cost
of an additional artisan worker will be dependent on the nature of
the business/operational needs. They recommend annual
Inflationary
increases should be accounted for.
[39]
They defer to the neurosurgeons for
consensus about the severity of the head injury sustained. They note
that Dr Kruger stated that
since the accident, Plaintiff has been
struggling with loss of short-term memory. Mr Roper, with reference
to the neuropsychological
difficulties following the head injury
opined that the accident has resulted in some neuropsychological
difficulties that are considered
to be a manifestation of a severe
head Injury. He advised from a neuropsychological perspective, his
occupational functioning and
career progression could be affected by
increased irritability rendering him more prone to conflict and/or
social isolation amongst
his clients and employees and that his
depressed mood may render him less driven and ambitious compared to
his pre-morbid level
of occupational functioning, impacting
negatively on the effective running of his business. The experts
agree that the 5% chance
of developing epilepsy in the future Is
concerning and this coupled with some neuropsychological difficulties
linked to his head
injury, as well as a guarded prognosis in this
regard as pointed out by Dr Roper may affect Plaintiff's job
functioning in the
long-term. They agree that the aforementioned
difficulties could have an adverse effect on future earnings and his
ability to manage
his business and therefore recommend that this be
addressed by means of a higher post-morbid contingency deduction.
[40] The
Plaintiff's loss of earnings since the collision and his future loss
of earning capacity have been
calculated by Prima Actuaries and
Consultants (Pty) Ltd as at 21 May 2019, and based on the following
assumptions post morbidly:
According to the report of
Chartered Accountant HW Regenass, dated 11 May 2019, the Actuary
assumes that Plaintiff earned R163 536
(R13 628 x 12) per annum from
the date of the accident till end of February 2017 and R172 812 (R14
401 x 12) per annum for the
financial year March 2017 - February
2018.
Plaintiff is assumed to have
started working again in December 2016. The Actuary therefore uses
the following basis to estimate
Plaintiff's post morbid earnings
from March 2018 till retirement at age 65 years:
(1)
Assumed earnings of R331 920 per
annum in December 2016 which they increase linearly until May 2026 (a
5- month delay compared to
the pre-morbid scenario) to the same
career celling as assumed in the pre morbid scenario of RSBO 406
per annum In current
monetary terms.
(2)
We however reduce Plaintiff's
(past) post-morbid earnings as noted in (1) above from February 2017
by R39 000 (R3 000 x 13) per
annum, increased linearly to a current
R45 500 (R3 500 x 13) per annum. This reduction is based on the cost
of a second assistant
labourer at an initial R3000 per month,
currently R3500 per month, (pre-trial minute par.2.3) including an
assumed thirteenth cheque
as annual bonus.
(3)
Assume that Plaintiff will have
to realign his work from date of calculation to avoid medium and
heavy tasks. Assume he will in
all probability appoint a skilled
artisan to take over the majority of his duties. Assume annual
earnings on par with the median
salaries as indicated for an
artisan/tradesman of R178 000 per annum in July 2019 monetary terms,
or R177 103 per annum in current
monetary terms. We therefore reduce
Plaintiff's (future) post-morbid earnings (as noted in (1) by R177
103. Thereafter earnings
with inflationary increases only until
retirement at age 65 years are projected. Allowance is made for a
higher future post morbid
contingency deduction as recommended by the
Industrial Psychologists. The basis of the calculation and the
assumptions made were
undisputed and not counter-attacked.
[41]
According to the calculation by Prima
Actuaries and Consultants (Pty) Ltd, the Plaintiff's gross
prospective value of income uninjured
is RB 642 621. The Actuary
applied a contingency deduction of 15% and that resulted to the net
value of future uninjured income
being R7 346 228.
[42]
According to the calculation by Prima
Actuaries and Consultants (Pty) Ltd, the Plaintiff's gross
prospective value of income injured
Is R6 250 236. The Actuary
applied an illustrative contingency deduction of 30% on future
employment (which equals 1% per year
of future employment until
retirement age instead of the customary 0.5% per year) and that
resulted to the net value of future
injured Income being R4 375 165.
The net future loss is therefore R2 971 063. Net past and future is
calculated at R3 217 055.
[43]
Contingencies have been described as
normal consequences and circumstances of life, which beset every
human being and, which directly
affect the amount that a plaintiff
would have earned.
AA MUTUAL
INSURANCE v VAN JAARSVELD 1974(4) SA 729 (A).
[44]
In his book,
The
Quantum Year Book,
Koch states that
when assessing damages for loss of earnings or support it is usual
for a deduction to be made for general contingencies
for which no
explicit allowance has been made in the actuarial calculation. The
deduction is in the prerogative of the court. General
contingencies
cover a wide range of considerations which may vary from case to case
and may include: taxation, early death, loss
of employment, promotion
prospects, divorce etc.
[45]
Koch refers to the following as some of
the guidelines as regards contingencies:
•
Normal
contingencies" as deductions of 5% for past Joss and 15% for
future loss.
•
Sliding
scale: Y2 % per year to retirement age, i.e. 25% for a child, 20% for
a youth and 10% for middle age and relies on
GOODALL
v PRESIDENT INSURANCE 1978(1) SA 389.
•
Differential
contingencies are commonly applied, that is to say one percentage
applied to earnings but for the accident, and a different
percentage
to earnings having regard to the accident.
[46] When
a court is called upon to exercise an arbitrary discretion that is
largely based on speculated
facts it must do so with necessary
circumspection. In the absence of contrary evidence, the court can
assume that a reasonable
person in the position of the plaintiff
would have succeeded to minimize the adverse hazards of life rather
than accept them. Both
favourable and adverse contingencies have to
be taken into account in determining an appropriate contingency
deduction. Bearing
in mind that contingencies are not always adverse,
the court should in exercising its discretion lean in favour of the
plaintiff
as he would not have been placed In the position where his
income would have to be the subject of speculation if the accident
had
not occurred.
[47]
The
locus classicus on contingency deductions is the judgment of Nicolas
JA at 116-117 of Southern Insurance Association v Bailey
NO 1984(1)
SA 98 (A): "Where the method of actuarial computation Is
adopted, it does not mean that the trial judge is "tied
down by
inexorable actuarial calculations". He has "a large
discretion to award what he considers right" (per Holmes
JA in
Legal Assurance
Co
Ltd v Botes 1963(1) SA 608 (A) at 614F).
one of the elements in exercising that discretion is the making of a
discount for "contingencies"
or the 'Vicissitudes of life'
These include such matters as the possibility that the plaintiff may
in the result have Jess than
a "normal" expectation of
life; and that he may experience periods of unemployment by reason of
incapacity due to illness
or accident, or
to
labour unrest or
general economic conditions. The amount of any discount may vary,
depending on the circumstances of the case. See
Van der Plaats v
South African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd 1980(3) SA 105
(A) at 114-5. The rate of the discount cannot
of course be assessed
on any logical basis: the assessment must be largely arbitrary and
must depend upon the trial Judge's impression
of the case".
[48] I am
of the view that the issue of contingency deductions must be answered
on whether the actuarial
calculations are based on reliable evidence.
In my view there can be no controversy arising from the facts
submitted by the Plaintiff
to the expert witnesses, because both
parties agreed at the outset of the trial that the contents of the
reports should be submitted
in evidence and that the contents of such
reports be treated as being true and correct without the need of
calling witnesses who
had made those statements.
[49]
I am prepared to treat the actuarial
calculations and all statements relevant thereto which appear In the
reports submitted to the
court as true and reliable. Consequently,
there will be deductions made for contingencies in respect of future
loss of income at
the rate of 30%. Under the circumstances therefore,
I am of the view that the actuarial calculations as depicted above
are fair
and equitable and will serve to balance the interests of
both parties.
[50]
The Plaintiff's claim is calculated as
follows:
General Damages:
R1, 200 000.00
Past loss of Earnings:
R 245 993.00
Future Loss of Earnings:
R2, 971 063.00
Total:
R4, 417 056.00
Less 40%:
R2, 650 233.60
[51]
Accordingly I
make the following order:
1.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff
the sum of R2, 650 233.60 (TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY
THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY
THREE RAND AND SIXTY CENTS), to
plaintiff's attorneys SURITA MARAIS ATTORNEYS in full and final
settlement of the plaintiff's claim
in respect of general damages and
past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity, which amount
shall be payable by direct
transfer into plaintiff attorney's trust
account
2.
The defendant must make payment of the
plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court
scale, which costs shall
include, but not be limited to the
following:
2.1
The
fees of Senior/Junior Counsel on the High Court scale, inclusive of
but not limited to Counsels full day fee for the trial on
10 July
2019 which costs shall include preparation for 10 July 2019, and
costs of preparation of Heads of Argument, if any;
2.2
The
reasonable taxable costs of obtaining all expert/medico-legal, RAF4
Serious Injury Assessment ratings, actuarial reports and
any other
report of an expert nature from the plaintiff's experts, of whom
notice had been given, including but not limited to
the reports which
were furnished to the defendant and/or its experts;
2.3
The
reasonable taxable preparation, qualification, travelling and
reservation fees, if any, of the following experts:
2.3.1
Dr D Mare (Orthopaedic Surgeon);
2.3.2
Wilma van der Walt (Occupational
Therapist);
2.3.3
Dr APJ Botha (Specialist Physician);
2.3.4
Dr Berkowitz (Plastic Surgeon);
2.3.5
Dr Kirstein (Pulmonologist);
2.3.6
Ms JH Kruger (Neurosurgeon);
2.3.7
Leon Roper (Clinical Psychologist) ;
2.3.8
Nicolene Kotze (Industrial
Psychologist);
2.3.9
Prima Actuaries and Consultants
(Actuary);
2.4
The
costs of all consultations between the plaintiff' attorneys, and/or
counsel, and/or experts, and/or witnesses in preparation
for the
hearing of the action;
2.5
The
costs of a consultation between the plaintiff and his attorney to
discuss the terms of this order;
2.6
The
reasonable taxable accommodation and transportation costs (including
Toll and E-Toll charges) incurred by or on behalf of the
plaintiff in
attending medico-legal consultations with the parties' experts,
consultations with legal representatives and court
proceedings,
subject to the discretion of the Taxing Master;
2.7
The
above costs shall also be paid into the afore-mentioned trust account
of Surita Marais Attorneys.
3.
The
following provisions will apply with regard to the determination of
the aforementioned taxed or agreed costs:
3.1
The
plaintiff shall serve the notice of taxation on the defendant'
attorney of record;
3.2
The
plaintiff shall allow the defendant 14 (FOURTEEN) court days to make
payment of the taxed costs from date of settlement or taxation
thereof;
3.3
Should
payment not be effected timeously, plaintiff will be entitled to
recover interest at 10.25% per annum on the taxed or agreed
costs
from date of allocator to date of final payment.
4.
The issue of past medical expenses Is
postponed sine die.
RA.SLATER
ACTING JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG
DIVISION. PRETORIA
Heard
on:
10
July 2019
For
the Plaintiff:
Adv
J De Beer
Instructed
by:
Surita
Marais Attorneys
For
the Respondent:
Adv MH Bukaba
Instructed
by:
Mac Ndlovu Incorporated.