Summary of Judgment

1. Introduction

This was a civil damages action against the Road Accident Fund arising from a motor vehicle collision, with the outstanding dispute confined to the quantification of general damages.

The plaintiff was Marie Louise De Wet. The defendant was the Road Accident Fund.

The matter came before the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria. The judgment records that liability on the merits was conceded at 100% in favour of the plaintiff, with the defendant accepting responsibility for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages. Various heads of damages were either agreed or resolved by agreement during the proceedings, leaving only the amount of general damages for the court to determine.

The general subject-matter of the dispute concerned compensation for personal injuries sustained in the collision, including agreed amounts for medical expenses, agreement on an undertaking for future medical costs in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act, and agreement on a quantified amount for future loss of earnings, with only pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life (general damages) remaining for determination.

2. Material Facts

The collision occurred on 9 July 2013 at approximately 05:45 on the Badfontein Road in Lydenburg. The plaintiff was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by Mr W L Boshof (the “insured vehicle”), and the collision also involved another vehicle whose registration details were unknown to the plaintiff (an unidentified vehicle).

It was common cause that the defendant conceded 100% liability on the merits, and therefore the only disputes concerned the quantification of damages, with most items resolved by agreement.

The parties agreed the amount of past medical expenses (described in the judgment as “post medical expenses”) at R83 357.14. They also agreed that the defendant would furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 to cover future medical-related costs arising from the injuries, after such costs are incurred and upon proof thereof.

The parties placed before the court various medico-legal reports and joint minutes of experts, which were admitted into evidence. The judgment records that, by agreement, an orthopaedic surgeon’s report by Dr H B Enslin was admitted, and a report by Dr Gosai was to be ignored.

As to loss of earnings, the judgment records that the plaintiff conceded that future loss of income would be calculated using a 10% contingency deduction (instead of 16.50% in the actuarial report). On that basis, the parties agreed the plaintiff was entitled to R4 412 964.95 for future loss of earnings.

The injuries relied upon by the court for purposes of general damages included a fracture/dislocation of C6/C7 treated with anterior cervical fusion, a T3 compression fracture, lung contusion, and decreased hearing in the left ear. The court accepted that these injuries were severe and resulted in severe and continuous pain.

The court further noted the plaintiff’s traumatic personal circumstances following the accident, including that her fiancé was fatally injured in the collision, and that she was traumatised and had considered suicide.

3. Legal Issues

The central legal question was the appropriate quantum of general damages to be awarded for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, given that other heads of damages had been agreed.

The dispute primarily concerned a value judgment (the quantification of non-patrimonial loss), involving the application of legal principles governing general damages to the accepted facts concerning the nature, severity, and consequences of the plaintiff’s injuries and trauma.

There was no dispute recorded in the judgment as to legal liability or causation (given the concession on the merits), and no remaining factual controversy identified as determinative; the outstanding issue was the exercise of judicial discretion in setting a fair and reasonable award for general damages.

4. Court’s Reasoning

The court approached the matter on the basis that general damages are not capable of precise monetary measurement and that their assessment is a matter of judicial discretion. It stated that the court must determine reasonable compensation that is fair and just in the circumstances of the particular case.

In articulating this approach, the court relied on the principle that damages for personal injuries are assessed using broad general considerations, and that the figure ultimately reflects the judge’s view of what is fair in all the circumstances. The court referred to Sendler v Wholesale Coal Supplier for this proposition.

The court considered comparative awards placed before it by the parties. The defendant contended that no more than R700 000.00 would be appropriate, relying on Easters v Metro-Rail. The plaintiff contended that an award of R800 000.00 to R850 000.00 would be fair, and relied on decisions including Dlamini v Road Accident Fund, Bismilla v Road Accident Fund, Mohale v Road Accident Fund, and Mofokeng v Road Accident Fund.

In evaluating the use of comparable cases, the court emphasised that such awards may be useful and instructive, but they are not decisive. It referred to Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb for the caution that comparison should not become a fetter on the court’s general discretion, nor should it involve a meticulous fixing of compensation purely by reference to other awards.

On the facts, the court accepted that the plaintiff endured considerable pain and suffering after the accident and that the injuries were severe, resulting in ongoing pain. It also treated the broader impact of the accident on the plaintiff’s life as material, noting the fatal injury to her fiancé and the plaintiff’s traumatisation and suicidal ideation. Considering these circumstances collectively, the court concluded that an award of R800 000.00 as general damages was appropriate.

5. Outcome and Relief

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages of R800 000.00.

The judgment records the following additional agreed or resolved items forming part of the overall relief: payment of R83 357.14 for past medical expenses; payment of R4 412 964.95 for future loss of earnings (as agreed following the contingency adjustment); and the furnishing of an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 to cover qualifying future medical-related expenses after they are incurred and proved.

The court made an order in terms that “the draft order marked X” was made an order of court. The text provided does not set out the full contents of that draft order, and no explicit, separate costs order is reproduced in the excerpt.

Cases Cited

Sendler v Wholesale Coal Supplier 1941 AD 194 at 199.

Easters v Metro-Rail (22394/2004) [2014] ZAGPJHC 176 at 188.

Dlamini v Road Accident Fund 39907(2110) at 46.

Bismilla v Road Accident Fund (2012/12325) [2017] ZAGPJHC 277 at 86.

Mohale v Road Accident Fund (33835/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 437 at 25.

Mofokeng v Road Accident Fund (2009/11101) [2014] ZAGPJHC 160 at 112.

Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A) at 534.

Legislation Cited

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, section 17(4)(a).

Rules of Court Cited

No rules of court are cited in the provided text of the judgment.

Held

The court held that, with the merits conceded and other heads of damages agreed, the remaining issue was the quantification of general damages, which required the exercise of judicial discretion guided (but not determined) by comparable awards.

Applying the principles that general damages cannot be calculated with precision, that awards in other matters serve only as guidance, and having regard to the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries, ongoing pain, and the traumatic consequences of the accident, the court awarded R800 000.00 in general damages.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life are inherently incapable of precise monetary calculation; the award is determined by the court through the exercise of a broad discretion to achieve a result that is fair and just on the facts of the particular case.

Awards in other cases may be consulted as a useful guide in quantifying general damages, but the comparative process is not decisive and should not be allowed to become a rigid constraint on the court’s discretion; the inquiry remains focused on what is fair in the circumstances of the case at hand.