V v Road Accident Fund (2069/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 882 (31 March 2017)

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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 882
|

|

V v Road Accident Fund (2069/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 882 (31 March 2017)

SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO:
2069/2016
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
31/3/2017
In
the matter between:
H
V
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MALI
J
[1]
The plaintiff, described herself as a fifty two year old divorcee and
a single parent of a twenty three year old. She sued the
defendant
for damages resulting from injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle
accident on 9 October 2011.
[2]
The claim is in respect of loss of income and general damages only
merits having been settled. The defendant agreed to furnish
the
plaintiff with an undertaking in respect of future medical expenses
in terms of
section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56
of 1996 (section 17(4)(a)).
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[3]
It is common cause that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was
unemployed. She commenced her working career in 1982 at
Telkom where
she was in charge of Electronic Telecommunications Exchange. She
attended internal courses on information technology
and later
qualified as an Information Technology Specialist
("IT
specialist”).
[4]
She worked for Telkom until 2005 when she took a voluntary package
and opened a restaurant. Whilst she was running her business
she was
invited to lecture on Software designs at Botlhabela College in
Bronkhorstpruit from 2010 to 2011. Thereafter she worked
for Eskom
(Kusile Power Station under Roshcom) attending to all electrical
cable works. She stopped working for Eskom shortly before
the
collision.
[5]
According to the Orthopaedic Surgeon's report the plaintiff suffered
bodily injuries described as follows:
(i)
An intra- articular fracture of the right
subtalar joint;
(ii)
Lacerations on her forehead;
(iii)
A soft tissue injury to the thoracic spine;
(iv)
A soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine;
(v)
A
soft tissue injury to the cervical spine;
(vi)
An injury to her chest;
(vii)
A fracture of the right distal radius;
(viii)
A head injury
(ix)
A soft tissue injury to the left shoulder;
(x)
A
soft tissue injury to the right shoulder;
(xi)
A soft tissue injury to the right knee;
(xii)
A soft tissue injury to the left knee;
[6]
In the report of Ingrid Jonker, Counselling Psychologist (with
special interest in Neuropsychology), the plaintiff suffered
bodily
injuries described as follows:
(i)
Lacerations on her forehead;
(ii)
An injury to the neck;
(iii)
Four fractured ribs to the right ribcage;
(iv)
Three fractured ribs to the left ribcage;
(v)
A
fractured right hand;
(vi)
A fractured left wrist;
(vii)
An injury to her lower back;
(viii)
A haematoma to her right thigh;
(ix)
A fractured coccyx;
(x)
A
fractured right foot;
(xi)
A fractured left toe;
(xii)
Lacerations to both lower legs.
[7]
Details of the accident are common cause between the parties. The
defendant did not produce any expert reports and relied on
the
plaintiff's expert reports.
PLAINTIFF'S
EVIDENCE
[8]
Plaintiff testified that as a result of the accident she suffered
terrible migraine headaches, pain in the back and neck as
well as
both of her shoulders. She had difficulty breathing because of the
pain in her chest. Her knees were lacerated, she had
contusion in her
legs and her left big toe was broken.
[9]
She further stated that her foot was put in plaster at Kalafong
hospital where she was first attended to and was later operated
on
during December of 2012 more than a year post accident.
[10]
The plaintiff testified that while she was still in hospital she was
offered employment at Makhado Chain Store in Limpopo as
an IT Systems
Administrator. She was employed on six months renewable contract.
Although she was expected to start on 1 December
2011 she commenced
with her duties on 3 January 2012. The reason for her late start was
that the employer had to allow her time
to heal from her injuries as
she attended the interview whilst she was still on crutches. The
employer was prepared to wait due
to her expertise.
[11]
Plaintiffs day to day duties involved maintenance of IT systems,
software and maintenance support and servers for all the branches
of
her then employer. She stated that she was experiencing lot of pain
as her job involved physical movement. The contract was
not renewed
and she was not given reasons for the non-renewal of her contract.
[12]
Under cross examination the plaintiff testified that she cannot
specialise on IT development because it involves a lot of sitting
and
she cannot sit for more than half an hour a time. According to her
the IT industry is looking for the entire package from any
employee;
inclusive of physical movement. The plaintiffs version was not
challenged.
[13]
On 3 July 2012 the plaintiff commenced working for ISOQ Consulting.
Her mandate involved the development of the IT systems
project for
the company from scratch. As she progressed with her work the company
increased the staff personnel from 15 to 45.
The plaintiff was in
charge of the IT systems for all of personnel. The systems involved
setting up a server, switchboard, the
buying of new computers,
installing and setting up of pastel accounting software, arranging
satellite intranet. The plaintiffs
testimony is that the type of work
was very physical involved and she had to move up and down, and
sometimes had to climb the roof.
She stated that she experienced a
lot of pains in her foot, back, neck and suffered constant headaches.
[14]
What further exacerbated the plaintiff's situation is that she had to
drive from Pretoria East where she stayed to Midrand,
her workplace.
She later realised that her lower back was also broken. She
discovered this when she attended one of her regular
sessions related
to migraine headaches with various doctors. She testified that she
was later retrenched from ISOQ. The retrenchment
occurred after she
attended a disciplinary hearing because of her absence due to medical
reasons.
[15]
Under cross examination she testified that she assumed she was
retrenched because of her regular absence from work as she was
not
afforded reasons for her retrenchment. She further stated that she
took up the matter with CCMA through her erstwhile attorney
who
seemingly never prosecuted the matter. However at page 125 of the
Trial Bundle the following information is found on the retrenchment

letter from ISO-Q Consulting, signed by Robert Tom Rioga, dated 18
February 2014:
“
...This letter
serves as formal communication of intention to retrench as your post
has
become
superfluous
to Company requirements. As discussed the staff compliment in the
Administration Department is being reduced in
a
bid to contain costs in line with reduced
levels of
business and
income from Eskom.
We
have
discussed various
alternatives
including redeployment to the Training Department which has proven
too costly and unworkable ..."
[16]
She futher testified that she has the ability to train people however
driving and sitting in front of a class would be her
major challenge.
In re-examination she testified that technology changes rapidly it
would not be easy for her to go back without
being retrained, despite
the challenges of the oversaturated industry.
[17]
The plaintiff has looked for employment and has been unsuccessful in
doing so. She has given up searching for work and she
currently stays
with her brother and sister in-law who look after her. Plaintiff has
also come to the realisation that she cannot
do sedentary work and or
any day job as she is still experiencing pains.
[18]
The plaintiff states that she has been affected in various ways as
she sweats at night, has nightmares, in the nightmares she
always
sees oncoming cars and hears screeching brakes. She struggles to
sleep in a normal position because of back pains. She cannot
sit for
longer periods and cannot ascend the steps with ease and she cannot
pick heavy objects because of her injured wrist.
[19]
The plaintiff further stated that she has difficulties in working on
computers, the area of her training. When she uses a mouse
for long
periods her hand gets stiff. She cannot work in stooped position, and
is neither able to use bath and always takes a shower.
She is
suffering emotionally as she is depressed and is not interested to go
out. She feels invisible as she cannot get employment
and is always
in pain. She has gained more than 40 kilograms of weight of since the
accident.
[20]
The plaintiff testified that if she had been injured she would be
working in the Electronics and Technology fields. As indicated
above
the field is overpopulated hence it is difficult for her to obtain
employment. The defendant could not gainsay the plaintiff's
version
except to point out that the plaintiff's experts reports do not say
she cannot work.
REPORTS
OF EXPERTS
MS
INGRID JONKER -COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGIST
[21]
Ms Ingrid Jonker
("Jonker")
stated
as follows
inter alia
in
respect of the present complaints:
"6.2 Upon direct
questioning, the following difficulties were reported:
6.2.1.
Mental slowing: Ms V has been experiencing
mental slowing and her mind has no longer felt
as
sharp
as
before.
6.2.2.
Multi -tasking: She stated that she has
been experiencing
a
decreased
ability to multi- task post accident.
6.2.3.
Dysnomia: The plaintiff stated she has
been experiencing word­ finding difficulties since the accident.
[22]
Jonker is of the opinion that the fact that the plaintiff sustained a
mild concussive head injury should not result in long-term
cognitive
difficulties since the majority of head injuries of this nature does
not result therein. (See 10.4.1.6 page 29 of her
report Page 107
Trial bundle). At page 30 paragraph 10.4.1.9 Jonker opines:"
Therefore, her current neuropsychological
presentation is considered to be the result of pyschological
difficulties associated with
depression and
posttraumatic stress symptomatology
as
well
as
anxiety,
exacerbated by ongoing pain ... 10.4.2.1.1 A depressed mood on
a
daily basis due to her inability to function
at her pre-accident level and the loss of her
employment and independence. The plaintiff
stated that she has also been experiencing increased levels of
irritability
as
well
as
anger outbursts;
...”
[23]
At page 34 paragraph 10.5.4.2 Jonker
inter alia
reported:
"A comprehensive
neuropsychological assessment demonstrated cognitive vulnerabilities
which are expected to adversely affect
Ms V's efficiency and
consistency in the open labour market, should she manage to secure a
position. In this regard, her fluctuating
attention; psychomotor
slowing; rote verbal memory difficulties; concept generation
difficulties;
as
well
as
her manual
dexterity problems have rendered her less competitive in the open
labour market".
DR THEO ENSLIN-
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER
[24]
Dr Theo Enslin
("Theo Enslin")
examined the plaintiff on 15 November 2016.
At page 4 of his report page 48 of the Trial bundle the outcome
diagnosis is recorded
as follows:
·
Subtalar arthodesis of the right foot.
·
A healed right distal radius fracture.
·
Cosmetic disfigurment.
·
A strain of the right shoulder.
·
A strain of the left shoulder.
·
Chondromalacia of the right knee.
·
Chondromalacia of the left knee.
·
Costochondritis of the chest.
·
Ingrown toe nail in the left foot.
·
A whiplash injury to her cervical spine.
·
Mechanical back pain in the lumbar spine.
·
Mechanical back pain in the thoracic spine.
·
A Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depressed
mood.
At
page 9 Theo Enslin opines that the plaintiff has suffered serious
long term impairment and permanent serious disfigurement. She
will
benefit from future conservative and probably surgical treatment.
FRIZELNA
STEYN MEDICO • LEGAL OCCUPATION THERAPY REPORT
[25]
Frizelna Steyn
("Steyn")
conducted
an evaluation of the plaintiff on 27 October 2016. At page 19 of his
report page 72 of the Trial bundle the following
is stated:
"4.IMPLICATIONS
OF THE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY FINDINGS ON THE ABILITY TO WORK
The purpose of this
section is to predict the claimant's vocational potential and
subsequent loss of earnings through consolidating
occupational
therapy assessment findings, the claimant's educational background
and work background.
The finding of the
occupational therapy assessment reveal major challenges relating to
pain in the spine, extending from the neck
o
the lower back, the shoulders, the knees and
the wrists, the right hand
and
the right foot. She had
a
limping
gait pattern and walked at
a
slow
pace. The pain she experienced was exacerbated when standing and
walking, sitting, climbing stairs and lifting objects. She
was unable
to squat and she experienced increased pain
when kneeling and stooping. It is therefore expected that she will
struggle with tasks
requiring body agility and flexibility,
maintaining static postures and tasks requiring mobility skills. The
right wrist and foot
were swollen with
a
1cm
difference in circumference. The left arm and leg were substantially
larger than the right arm with a difference of 6cm in the
upper arms
and 4cm in the thighs. The claimant displayed decreased hand grip
strength in both hands.
She
had
decreased right foot movements and she was unable to lift objects
weighing
more
than 5kg
on a frequent basis. Additionally, Ms V reported severe mood
challenges and she scored 53 on a self-report depression
questionnaire. Such a score is associated with extreme depression ...
When the writer considers Ms  V's residual functional
capacity,
the writer is of the opinion that she will currently not be able to
cope with a full day's work. Her work tolerance has
been diminished
by the pain she is experiencing as well as her mood challenges"
[26]
The findings of the orthopaedic Surgeon Dr B. Enslin and Mr N.J. van
Niekerk the Industrial Psychologist are incorporated in
the
submissions and analysis under the headings of loss of income and
general damages.
LOSS
OF INCOME
[27]
The well established principle of calculating loss of income is found
in
Southern
Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
[1]
,
wherein the following is stated:
"Any enquiry into
the damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature
speculative, because it involves
a
prediction
as
to the future,
without the benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs or oracles.
All that the court can do is to make an estimate,
which is often
a
very
rough
estimate, of the present value of the loss.
It has open to it two
possible approaches.
One is for the Judge
to make
a
round
estimate of an amount which seems to him to be fair and reasonable.
That is entirely
a
matter
of guesswork,
a
blind
plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to make an assessment,
by way of mathematical calculations, on the
basis of assumptions resting on the evidence.
The validity of this approach depends of course upon the soundness of
the assumptions,
and these may vary from the strongly probable to the
speculative...."
[28]
In the present matter the use of actuarial calculations has been
accepted to be the viable approach. The report of the Actuary

incorporates the findings of N.J. van Niekerk
("van
Niekerk”)
the Industrial Psychologist.
According to the Actuary report of HLM du Plessis compiled on 1
February 2017 the total loss of past
earnings amounts to R402.472.00.
Mr Du Plessis used the assessments of industrial psychologist as to
the career path likely to
be followed by the plaintiff.
[29]
Mr Du Plessis has calculated the total loss of future earnings to be
R2000 975.00. The actuary bases the Pre- accident ('but
for the
accident') income on the assumption that the plaintiff would have
been unemployed due to retrenchment until 30 November
2014. The
report of the actuary states:
"The
plaintiff would then obtain employment from 1 December 2014 earning
R237 640 per annum in April 2016 monetary terms, steadily
progressing
to R293 620 per annum in April 2016 monetary terms from age 55... I
assume that the plaintiff would have retired at
the age of 64 (sic)
years".
The above calculations have
allowed for regular inflationary adjustments to the plaintiff's
hypothetical income thereafter, commensurate
with the extent expected
for the general employed population, until retirement.
[30]
In respect of the post-accident ('having regard to the accident')
income the assumption is that the plaintiff would have earned
the
same as in pre-accident scenario until 28 February 2014. The Actuary
further assumed that as at 1 March 2014 the plaintiff
was retrenched
and would have earned nil income thereafter.
[31]
The actuary took into consideration income tax, earning escalation
rates, investment and mortality and application of the cap
provided
for in
section 17
(4)(c) of the
Road Accident Fund Act, No 56 of
1996
.
[32]
I understand the defendant's contention to be the loss of future
earnings. The defendant did not call any witnesses and it
neither
submitted any experts report. The defendant's case is centred on one
aspect that the plaintiff will cope with half a day's
work. In
essence the defendant's case is that the plaintiff is able to obtain
employment despite the plaintiff's testimony that
she is unable to
secure employment.
[33]
Ms Erasmus, Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is
highly skilled. She was employed by ISO-Q consulting for
a period of
19 months and her retrenchment had nothing to do with her injuries. I
fully agree that the plaintiff's retrenchment
at ISO-Q consulting is
clearly recorded as the company's cost containing measures which
covered 24 full time employees. Be that
as it may the plaintiff's
sequelae and the impact thereof is well documented by various experts
and is not disputed by the defendant.
[34]
The defendant's argument disregards the injuries of the plaintiff as
documented by the experts. See paragraphs 24 and 25 above.
The
defendant also does not take into account the various experts reports
or example;
van Niekerk
at
page 24 - 25 of his report at page 138 of the Trial bundle surmise as
follows:
"Ms. V is
currently 52 years of age. Despite her extensive work
experience/expertise, especially in the IT environment, she
has been
unable to secure any employment on the open labour
market
for the last almost 3 years. Bearing in mind expert opinion indicated
above regarding her remaining accident- related pathology
this seems
justifiable. It is indeed the writer's view that she is unlikely to
secure any employment on the open labour market
in the foreseeable
future. Furthermore it seems that, even following the recommended
treatment regime, her symptoms are likely
to get progressively worse,
subsequently reducing her already significantly reduced work
capabilities even further. Writer Is thus
of view, for reasons
discussed above, and bearing in mind that she has been out of the
labour market for almost 3 years, which
is significant in an IT
environment, with symptoms that are likely to get progressively
worse, Ms. V is unlikely to secure employment
on the open labour
market in future and she is likely to remain unemployed for the
remainder of her work life." OWN EMPHASIS
[35]
Having regard to the above I find that the plaintiff has suffered
loss of income including loss of future earnings. This is
due to the
lack of employment opportunities for her because of the accident.
CONTINGENCY
[36]
Contingencies have been described as the 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.
[2]
In his
book
The
Quantum
Yearbook,
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 prospect, divorce etc.
[37]
Koch refers to the following as some of the guidelines a regards
contingencies:
·
"Normal contingencies" as deductions of
5% for past loss and 15% for future loss.
·
Sliding
scale: 1/2 % per year to retirement age, i.e. 25% for a child, 20%
for a youth and 10% in the middle age and relies on
Goodall
v President lnsurance
[3]
.
·
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.
[38]
When a court is called upon to exercise an arbitrary discretion that
is largely based on speculated facts it must do so with
the 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 to 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.
[39]
I am of the view that deductions of 5% contingency for past loss
presents a fair value and 15% deduction in respect of future
loss of
income will fairly compensate the plaintiff for the loss suffered as
a result of the accident. An amount of R20.123.60
representing 5%
contingency is to be deducted from the past loss of income of
R402.472.00. In the result the net past loss income
amounts to
R382.348.40. An amount of R300.146.25 representing 15% contingency is
to be deducted from the amount of R2.000.975.00
representing an
amount of future loss of income. In the result the net future loss of
income amounts to R1.700.828.75
GENERAL DAMAGES
[40]
The plaintiff claims a sum of R500.000.00 in respect of General
damages. Plaintiff's counsel referred the court to the case
of
Abrahams
v Road Accident Fund
[4]
.
The
case was decided in 2012 and the plaintiff was awarded R500.000.00 in
general damages. The plaintiff a 41 year old male employed
as a spray
painter suffered shortening of the right lower limb with the need to
wear an assistive device. Secondary osteoarthritis
in the left knee.
Limitation of range of motion and pain in the right hip, knee and
ankle. Plaintiff was found to have pre-existing
generalised anxiety
disorder and social phobia exacerbated and was rendered unemployable.
[41]
Counsel for the plaintiff also referred to
Noble
v Road Accident Fund
[5]
.
The
plaintiff was a 36 year old male who was contracted to a firm of
attorneys. He amongst others, suffered head and brain injuries,

shortening of the right leg and rotational deformity, fractured right
tibia rendering ongoing pain and difficulties, soft tissue
spinal
injury rendering chronic neck and pain and cervicogenic headaches;
lower back pain associated with the shortening of the
right leg. He
was awarded R600.000.00 in general damages.
[42]
In the present case although the plaintiff's sequelae is somewhat
similar to the cases above, the plaintiff did not sustain
brain
injuries and shortening of limbs. The nature extent of the
plaintiff's pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life are
well
documented in the various medical reports. It is unequivocally
accepted that the plaintiff will never enjoy life in the same
manner
before the accident.
[43]
Having stated the above, I am mindful of the caution in
De
Jong v Du Pisanie N.O.
[6]
at
paragraph 60 wherein the court, after noting the tendency towards
increased awards in respect of general damages in recent times,
was
readily perceptible and re-affirmed conservatism as one of the
multiple factors to be taken into account in awarding damages.
The
court concluded that the principle remained that the award 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
[7]
.
On the
issue of awarding quantum, a 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.
[44]
It is generally accepted that it could be difficult to find a case on
all fours with the one being heard and that awards in
deciding cases
should be considered only as a guide of how other courts arrived at
an award. See in this regard
Protea
Insurance Company v Lamb
[8]
.
[45]
It has been conceded on behalf of the defendant that a sum of
R500.000.00 is a fair and reasonable amount.
[46]
In assessing general damages the report of Dr Enslin at page 50-53 of
the trial bundle was considered. At page 6 of the report
the
following is stated;
"4 INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES:
·
Ms.
V's impairment has had
a
negative influence
on her general amenities, working ability and appearance.
·
She participated in karate and was busy with
her black belt second dan (sic) when the accident occurred on
09.10.2011."
[47]
At page 7 and 9 of Dr Enslin's report the following is stated;
"INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
·
Ms. V's impairment has had an negative
influence on her general amenities, working abilitiy and appearance.
·
Her pain and limitations of movement cause
restraints that do not allow her to work at the same level as before.
·
She participated in karate and was busy with
her black belt second dan when the accident occurred on 09.10.2011.
·
She had no symptoms in her neck, back,
shoulders, knees, chest, right ankle, feet or right wrist and has not
been involved in motor
vehicle accidents prior to or after
09.
10.2011.
·
She did not belong to
a
medical aid at the time of the accident.
LEVEL
OF DEGREE OF CHANGES:
·
She has unsightly scars over both knees and
face. She is very aware of these scars and attempts to hide them. A
survey recently
conducted through social media outlets in South
Africa showed that about 40% of women are self-conscious about the
scars which
can cause feelings of embarrassment, anger, fear, anxiety
and sadness. Psychological impacts
are
associated with scars from auto accidents,
violent crimes and serious bums. Scar victims have less success in
job applications;
their lack of confidence being
as
important
as
the
potential employers' reaction to their psychological
appearances.........
In view of the
multiple and serious injuries sustained on 09.10.2011, writer is of
the opinion that Ms. V suffered serious long
term impairment and
permanent serious disfigurement. She has not reached the 30% whole
person impairment, but qualifies under the
Narrative Test, which
warrants an award for general damages"
[48]
Having regard to the above and taking into account the sequalae of
the plaintiffs injuries I find that an amount of R500 000.00
is the
correct award for general damages.
[49]
The plaintiff's claim is calculated as follows:
Past medical expenses:
R36.592.07
Past loss of
earnings:        R382.348.40.
Future loss of
earnings:     R1.700.828.75
General
damages:
R500.000.00
ORDER
I
accordingly make the following order:
1.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of
R2.619.769.22.
2.
The defendant is to provide the plaintiff with a
section 17 (4) (a) undertaking in respect of future medical expenses.
3.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff taxed or
agreed party and party costs o which costs should also include the
preparation ,
reservation and attendance fee of the following
plaintiff's experts as well as their costs for preparing the medico
legal reports:
(i)
Orthopaedic Surgeon: Dr Hans B Enslin
(ii)
Independent Examiner: Dr Theo Enslin
(iii)
Industrial Psychologist: Mr N.J.Van Niekerk
(iv)
Counselling Psychologist: Ingrid Jonker
(v)
Actuary: Mr MHL Du Plessis
______________________
NP MALI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Counsel
for the Applicant: Adv. De Wet
Instructed
by: DELLOW ATTORNEYS
Counsel
for the Respondent: Adv. Erasmus
Instructed
by: TAU PHALANE INCORPORATED
Date
of Hearing: 1 February 2017
Date
of Judgment: 31 March 2017
[1]
1984 (1) SA 98
(A) at 113F- 114 A
[2]
1974(4) SA 729 (A)
[3]
1978 (1) SA 389
[4]
EC High Court, Case no: 1531/2010
[5]
South Gauteng High Court, case No 3925412008 decided on 24 February
2011
[6]
2005
(5) SA 547 (SCA)
[7]
1975 (3) SA 264
(N) at 267
[8]
1971 (1) SA 530
(A) at 535 H