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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1124
|
|
NGM v Road Accident Fund (54243/2010) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1124 (4 June 2015)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
/ES
(
GAUTENG
DIVISION. PRETORIA
)
DATE:
4/6/2015
Not
reportable
Not
of interest to other judges
Revised
CASE
NO: 54243/2010
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN
N
G
M PLAINTIFF
AND
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
JORDAAN
J
[1]
On 23 December 2005 the plaintiff was a passenger in a motor vehicle
which was involved in a collision with another vehicle
on the road
between Volksrust and New Castle. As a result of this collision the
plaintiff sustained serious brain damage.
[2]
The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant for:
(1) future medical
expenses;
(2) general damages; and
(3) future loss of
income.
[3]
The merits were settled between the parties 100% in favour of the
plaintiff. Before and during the trial the future and medical
expenses and general damages were settled between the parties. What
remained in issue was future loss of income.
[4]
On behalf of the plaintiff a number of expert reports were obtained.
On behalf of the defendant no expert reports were obtained.
[5]
Dr Mokabane is a neurologist. He filed reports and also gave evidence
before me. According to his report the plaintiff suffered
the
following injuries:
(1) loss of
consciousness;
(2) a laceration over the
right parietal area extending to the superior part of the occiput
about 12cm;
(3) scalp haematoma.
[6]
According to his report the plaintiff passed matric in 1993. She
enrolled for nursing in 2002/3 but only became a professional
nurse
in 2010. The plaintiff reported to him mat she started experiencing
difficulties with her studies after the accident.
[7]
He reports that at the time of the accident she was a staff nurse
(enrolled nurse) at Ermelo hospital. She had been employed
from 2005
to 2011. In 2012 she took a transfer to Volksrust provincial
hospital. Currently she works at Ladysmith provincial hospital
as a
professional nurse. He describes the main complaints of the plaintiff
as follows:
(1) Headache. She gets
about three headache episodes a week. It is pressing in nature,
intermittent and of moderate to severe intensity.
(2) Backache. She reports
that she has been experiencing backache since the accident. The
backache is aggravated by sitting or standing
for a prolonged period.
(3) Memory impairment.
She reports that she has been forgetful since the accident. She
forgets to order things and carry orders.
She has to diarise things
in order to remind herself.
(4) Fatigue. She reports
that she gets tired easily. This is associated generalised body pain.
(5) Emotional
disturbance. She reports that she 1s irritable since the accident.
(6) She reports that her
libido has markedly declined.
[8]
He further reports that the plaintiff has a right UMN facial nerve
palsy. He explained that that means a dysfunction of the
facial
nerves as a result of the injury to the brain. He further reported
that there is a suggestion of a cortical thumb on the
right. This is
also an indication of a brain injury.
[9]
He further reported that it took her five years instead of two years
to become a professional nurse.
[10]
In a subsequent report he makes the following remarks:
"1. The claimant
suffered significant traumatic brain injury resulting in cognitive
decline. She will not attain to her potential
and she may struggle to
keep her job.
2. At the moment the
claimant is a professional nurse working in the Department of
Radiology. In the Department of Radiology there
will be minimal
nursing intervention. With the support of other nurses she has
survived as a nurse, but should the claimant be
exposed to core
nursing, as in medical nursing like in her previous post, she would
most probably experience extreme difficulties
coping with the demands
of her work.
3. The claimant's
capacity to earn has declined, firstly, because she will not be able
to function within her scope of practice,
secondly, she will not be
able to get promoted or assume higher responsibility with her present
challenges.
4. The writer defers to
the Industrial Psychologist.
5. I therefore recommend
that the claimant be appropriately compensated for the loss of
capacity that has been caused by the injury."
[11]
In his evidence he qualified these remarks as follows. He said that
in the radiology department nurses sometimes have to deal
with
patients who have been involved in an accident. He said that the
plaintiff can be a danger and cause harm to such a patient.
The
nurses have to think on their feet. He testified that she cannot
continue to be a nurse unless she is under direct supervision.
He
said that in our system there is not such a person who can always
supervise the plaintiff.
[12]
Of importance is his evidence that he would not allow the plaintiff
to continue to be a registered nurse.
[13]
The next witness called by the plaintiff is Ms De Ridder. She is a
clinical psychologist. In her initial report she described
the brain
injury of the plaintiff as "ligte traumatiese breinbesering".
However, in her subsequent report she describes
the brain injury as
"traumatiese breinbesering". She testified that she came to
a different conclusion after studying
the other expert reports
especially the report by Dr Mokabane.
[14]
She testified that the early development of the plaintiff was normal.
She never failed a standard at school. At the time of
the accident
she was still busy studying to become a nurse. It took her five years
to complete her studies. The normal period to
complete the course is
two years.
[15]
She reports that the plaintiff after the accident was unconscious for
about 25 minutes or longer. She only regained consciousness
after the
ambulance arrived. She was confused and disorientated. She also
consulted the plaintiff's partner Mr Ndebele who was
also a passenger
in the vehicle. He confirms that she lost her consciousness and that
after she regained consciousness she was
confused.
[16]
Regarding the plaintiff's psycho-social functioning she remarked in
her report and in her evidence as follows:
"Me M verklaar dat
sy 'n normale sosiale lewe voor die betrokke ongeluk geniet het. Sy
het graag tyd saam met haar vriende
spandeer oar naweke en het
daarvan gehou om inkopies te doen. Me M ervaar sedert die ongeluk 'n
verandering in haar persoonlikheid
en probleme met interpersoonlike
gedrag. Sy meld dat sy hoogs gerrriteerd en liggeraak voel en
gereelde woedebuie ervaar. Haar
lewensmaat mnr B Ndebele bevestig in
'n onderhoud dat me M vinnig aggressief en gerrriteerd word, wat
veroorsaak dat hulle dikwels
rusie maak. Hy verklaar dat die gedrag
in sterk teenstelling met haar funksionering en optrede voor die
ongeluk staan en se: 'She
was perfect (easy going) before the
accident.'
Suster Lily Masebo, huidige kollega en toesighouer van
me M (2013) by die spesialiste kliniek in Ladysmith bevestig die
aanwesigheid
van haar buie en aggressiewe gedrag: 'She
gets angry
and often wants to be violent, but I'm always with her to help her.'
[17]
She further remarks as follows:
"Me M verklaar dat
sy sedert die betrokke ongeluk mense so ver moontlik vermy. Sy is nie
meer by sosiale geleenthede betrokke
nie en het haarself heeltemal
van ander onttrek."
[18]
Regarding her cognitive functioning Ms De Ridder made the following
remarks:
"Me M verklaar dat
sy voor die ongeluk 'n baie intelligente persoon was en geen probleme
met haar studies ondervind het nie.
Sy is van mening dat sy op
verstandelike gebied baie na die ongeluk verander het en nie meer op
dieselfde kognitiewe vlak as voorheen
funksioneer nie."
She
further remarks:
"Die aanwesigheid
van kognitiewe probleme word tydens kollaterale onderhoude met beide
haar lewensmaat mnr Bonyani Ndebele
en suster Lily Masebo, haar
huidige kollega by die spesialiste kliniek in Ladysmith bevestig."
[19]
She further remarks as follows:
"Me M ondervind
probleme met aandagspan en konsentrasie, wat deur die chroniese
hoofpyne vererger word. Sy meld ook dat sy
tans baie sensitief is vir
harde klanke, wat haar konsentrasie benadeel. Sy meld dat sy na die
ongeluk probleme met haar studies
ervaar, en sukkel om langer as twee
periodes lank te konsentreer. Me M ervaar ook konsentrasie problem
wanneer sy studeer: Haar
lewensmaat, Mnr B N kla oor me M. se swak
konsentrasie en meld:
'When we talk, her mind wanders and she
cannot concentrate, even when I'm telling her interesting things. She
can only concentrate
on one thing (at
a
time).'
Suster
Masebo meld dat me M in haar werksituasie by die kliniek oenskynlik
na opdragte luister, maar die opdrag nie kan herhaal
wanneer sy
daaroor uitgevra word nie."
[20]
She further remarks:
"Me M beskryf
haarself as vergeetagtig en ondervind probleme met haar geheue wat
haar studies bemoeilik:
'I can't remember things without going
over it again and again. Before the accident I would remember
everything, just being in class.'
Sy sal ook soms haar selfoon
soek terwyl dit reeds in haar hand is. Sy het ook geheueprobleme in
die hospitaalsaal ervaar en het
gereeld aan pasiente gese dat sy
spoedig sal terugkom, waarna sy heeltemal daarvan vergeet het. Me M
het dikwels eers daarvan onthou
wanneer sy terug in haar eie kamer
is, en was dan verplig om die betrokke saal te bel en die inligting
deur te gee, of vir 'n kollega
te vra om die taak namens haar uit te
voer. Sy meld dat sy nie in Ermelo hospitaal ernstige foute in die
saal begaan het nie, maar
wel bekommer is dat dit in die toekoms mag
gebeur."
[21]
She further remarks:
"Suster Lily Masebo,
wat tans saam met me M by die spesialiste kliniek in Ladysmith
werksaam is, bevestig dat ernstige geheue
probleme deur me M
ondervind word. Me M vergeet gereeld om opdragte deur spesialiste
gegee, aan te teken of uit te voer. Suster
Masebo meld dat sy voile
verantwoordelikheid vir me M se werkfunksionering ervaar en deurgaans
by me M probeer wees om haar aan
opdragte en take te herinner en
seker maak dat sy nie foute begaan nie. Me M het blykbaar by
geleentheid in die moeilikheid gekom
oor haar gebrekkige geheue,
waarna suster Masebo self die verantwoordelikheid vir die fout op
haarself geneem het."
[22]
This is an indication that on at least this occasion problems
occurred.
[23]
She further remarks:
"Wanneer sy lees,
kan me M dikwels nie verstaan wat sy lees nie en moet dit dan
meermale herhaal. Sy ervaar woordvindprobleme
en vergeet dikwels hoe
om woorde te spel wat sy voorheen goed geken het."
[24]
She further remarks:
"Sy meld dat haar
verstand nie so helder as voorheen is nie. Me M ervaar probleme met
begrip, ook van geskrewe materiaal en
sukkel om die werk te
verstaan,wat voorheen geensins die geval wss nie. Haar
voorbereiding vir haar lesse neem baie
langer as voorheen. Sy is
stadiger in die beplanning en uitvoering van take en pligte, ook in
die saal en kliniek."
[25]
Ms De Ridder performed a number of tests on the plaintiff. Regarding
her clinical impressions she
inter alia
remarks as follows:
"Me M se
gedagteprosesse was helder en sy was ten voile georienteerd ten
opsigte van tyd, plek en persoon. Sy het klinies geheue-
en
konsentrasie probleme tydens die onderhoud g.etoon en was nie in
staat om al die biologiese agtergrondsinligting te onthou en
korrek
weer te gee nie. Haar psigomotoriese spoed was baie stadig op sekere
toetse en sy toon lae energievlakke en lae dryfkrag.
Me M het goeie
samewerking gegee ten opsigte van die afneem van die psigometriese
toetse en die onderhoud, alhoewel sy by tye moeg
geword het. Die
toetsresultate behoort 'n betroubare aanduiding van haar ware
vermoens en probleemareas te wees. Sy is Engels goed
magtig en daar
is nie van 'n tolk gebruik gemaak nie."
[26]
Regarding the PTSD Symptom Scale Interview Ms De Ridder testified
that the plaintiff shows signs of post-traumatic stress.
[27]
She also performed an Intelligence Test on the plaintiff. These tests
indicated that before the accident the plaintiff was
of superior
intelligence but after the accident she was of average intelligence.
[28]
She also makes the following remarks:
'Daar is 'n
betekenisvolle verskil tussen haar verbale IK- en nie-verbale
IK-tellings teenwoordig ... Hierdie verskil is abnormaal
groot 'n
Verdere betekenisvolle verskil is ook tussen die Verbale Begrip
lndeks en Perseptuele Organisering lndeks teenwoordig
... Ook hierdie
verskil is abnormaal groot. Hierdie betekenisvolle verskille is 'n
indikasie van 'n oneweredige manifestasie van
die verbale en
nie-verbale vermoens van me M, wat nie normaalweg van 'n persoon
verwag sou word nie."
[29]
She also performed the Rey Fifteen Item Test on the plaintiff. This
test is an instrument that evaluates malignancy. There
was no
indication of any malingering.
[30]
She also performed the Comprehensive Trail Making Test on the
plaintiff. She remarked:
"Hierdie toets
bestaan uit 'n stel visuele opsoek- en opeenvolgingstake. Elke taak
(of spoor) bestaan uit 'n aantal kolle met
nommers en/of letters van
die alfabet wat met mekaar verbind moet word. Daar is eenvoudiger,
sowel as meer komplekse take."
[31]
It is of significance that the plaintiff was only able to complete
one of the easier tasks. Ms De Ridder remarks:
"Sy toon ernstige
tekorte aangaande uitvoerende funksie en sal in alle waarskynlikheid
probleme ervaar met die uitvoering van
haar take as verpleegster."
[32]
With reference to authorities she says that overall this test “is
believed to be highly sensitive to higher cortical
damage or
disease".
[33]
She also performed the Clock Drawing Test on the plaintiff. She
remarks as follows:
"'n Eenvoudige
opdrag word gegee, naamlik om 'n horlosie met al sy nommers te teken.
Die handwysers moet die tyd 11:10 aanwys."
[34]
She then remarks as follows:
"In me M se tekening
is sommige van die syfers effens uit pas ten opsigte van plasing. Een
van die syfers (5) is heeltemal
weggelaat en die derde kwadrant
vertoon redelik leeg met slegs een syfer daarin. Die handwysers dui
die regte tyd aan en is ook
korrek ten opsigte van die aanduiding van
uur en minute. Me M se prestasie op hierdie toets dui op inperking
van haar algemene
kognitiewe vermoens, hoer-orde en uitvoerende
funksies, asook visueel-ruimteli ke vermoens. Haar prestasie is nie
in ooreenstemming
met haar skoolopleiding en beroepskwalifikasie nie.
Hierdie tellings dui op moontlike teenwoordigheid van 'n organiese
kondisie."
[35]
She also performed the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test on the
plaintiff. She remarked that this test "word as 'n
neuropsigologiese
evalueringsinstrument gebruik, wat veral ouditiewe
korttermyn verbale geheue evalueer". She then remarked:
"Me Maziuko se
telling op die totale aantal woorde wat sy kon onthou, lê
uiters laag in die kategorie Kognitief Gestrem
... Me M se huidige
vermoë om nuwe ouditiewe materiaal aan te leer, is dus
uitermatig onder die norm geleë."
[36]
She also remarked:
"Die funksionering
van me M se langtermyn geheue ... is onder die norm gelee en minder
effektief as dié van haar korttermyn
geheue…"
[37]
She also remarked:
"Navorsing het
bevind dat daar 'n oorsaaklike verband tussen retroaktiewe stoornisse
en 'n traumatiese breinbesering bestaan:"
[38]
She also remarked:
"Me M se tellings op
al die take dui op belemmering van haar visueel-ruimtelike
konstruksievermoens en visuele geheue, enloon
dat daar moontlike
neurokognitiewe belemmering by haar aanwesig is."
[39]
She also testified that the impairment experienced by the plaintiff
1s permanent. It is going to remain the same.
[40]
She also remarks:
"Tydens 'n
telefoniese onderhoud met suster Lily Masebo, ... bevestig daagiikse
pligte by die kliniek ondervind. Volgens suster
Masebo ervaar me M
ernstige problem met haar geheue en vergeet sy dikwels opdragte wat
deur spesialiste aan haar gegee word. Gevolglik
word hierdie take nie
uitgevoer nie, behalwe wanneer sy deur suster Masebo daaraan herinner
word. Suster Masebo meld ook dat me
M baie sensitief vir geraas en
harde geluide is en dat sy meermale haar konsentrasie verloor as
gevolg daarvan."
[41]
Under the heading "lnvloed op Beroepsfunksionering" Ms De
Ridder remarks as follows:
"Me M was ten lye
van die onderhoud werksaam as stafverpleegster by Ermelo Hospitaal en
woonagtig in die verpleegsterstehuis.
Sy was ook hier werksaam tydens
die betrokke ongeluk in 2005. Sy het op daardie stadium as
gekwalifiseerde verpleegster gewerk
en was besig met 'n diploma
kursus van twee jaar, om haarself as professionele verpleegsuster te
bekwaam. Sy het verwag om die
opleiding in November 2010 te voltooi.
Op grond van die
inligting aangaande haar skool- en tersiere opleiding, asook haar
stabiele werksrekord tot en met die betrokke
ongeluk in 2005, kon
daar verwag word dat me M 'n positiewe en produktiewe bydrae tot die
arbeidsmag sou lewer. Sy sou in staat
gewees het om suksesvol in haar
beroep te vorder en om haarse!f en die persone afhanklik van haar oor
die langtermyn te versorg
en te onderhou.
Tydens 'n opvolgonderhoud
op 15 Augustus 2013 meld me M dat sy wel die betrokke kursus voltooi
het. Sy meld egter dat sy haar studies
as veel moeiliker beleef het
as voor die betrokke ongeluk en dat sy baie harder as voorheen moes
werk om 'n slaagsyfer te behaal.
(It has been referred to above that
she took five years to complete a two year course.) Alhoewel haar
premorbiede intellektuele
funksionering in alle waarskynlikheid bó
die norm gelee was, is haar algemene vlak van intellektuele
funksionering IK tans
in ooreenstemming met die norm en dit mag
verduidelik waarom sy steeds in staat was om haar studies te voltooi,
alhoewel sy die
werk slegs met uiterse inspanning kon baasraak. ...
Dit blyk dat me M steeds
gereelde en erge hoofpyne ervaar, en dat sy 'n toename in hoofpyn
ervaar, veral wanneer sy baie besig is
en in die saal of kliniek
werksaam is. Sy vermeld dat sy soms dubbelvisie en pyn in die
regteroor ervaar, en hipersensitiwiteit
vir klanke wat haar
werkprestasie en funksionering inperk. Suster Lily Masebo, kollega
van me M ... bevestig dat me M baie sensitief
vir geraas en harde
geluide is en dat sy meermale haar konsentrasie as gevolg hiervan
verloor.
Me M se huidige
kognitiewe funksionering is op die vlak van Gemiddeld. Haar
premorbied intellektuele funksionering was hoër,
waarskynlik ten
minste op die vlak Bo-Gemiddeld gelee. … Neuropsigoiogiese
toetsresultate bevestig die aanwesigheid van
kognitiewe belemmering
en uitvalle wat haar funksionering en werkvermoe inperk. Hierdie
kognitiewe uitvalle kan in alle waarskynlikheid
aan die traumatiese
breinbesering wat sy tydens die ongeluk opgedoen het, toegeskryf
word. Me M meld dat haar verstand nie so helder
as voorheen is nie en
dat haar algemene kognitiewe funksionering sedert die betrokke
ongeluk aangetas is. Sy ondervind tans probleme
met konsentrasie en
vind dit baie moeilik om te studeer, veral in die klaskamer."
[42]
Ms De Ridder then testified that the plaintiff has to function as a
nurse. She will not be able to do so. She cannot learn
new tasks. She
cannot repeat instructions. Something bad may happen. She will not be
able to learn new information.
[43]
She further testified that there are serious fall-outs for example
memory loss. She was not coping as a nurse. Her superior
had to look
after her as a result of her dysfunctionality. She cannot remember or
organise. She has to be reminded of instructions
by her superior.
Without such a person she cannot do her job. She cannot work
independently. Her executive functioning is not there
at all. She
needs that as a nurse.
[44]
A report by Dr Pretorius Inc Industrial Psychologists was handed in
by consent. In this report the following recommendations
are made:
"Based on the
information on hand, it was noted that although the claimant is still
presently functioning as a Professional
Nurse (albeit at a
significantly decreased capacity), her future ability to maintain her
employment and to grow her career has
been significantly compromised
by the
sequelae
of the
accident. Due to the severity of the brain injury she had sustained
in the accident, as well as the poor prognosis of her
cognitive and
personality functions, it seems that the claimant's continued
employment could place her patients at high risk should
she make
mistakes with medication or treatment of patients, or not follow the
doctor's instructions correctly. She is currently
only 42 years old,
and although her colleagues have been able to accommodate her by
assisting in reducing the visibility of her
restrictions to date, it
seems highly unlikely that this would be sustainable until her
anticipated retirement age of 65.
The
doctors are not currently aware of her difficulties
;
[1]
should the extent to which her limitations compromise her ability to
uphold safe and high standards required of a nurse become
evident,
she will likely be very vulnerable to losing her employment. She is
no longer an equal competitor compared to her uninjured
peers. If her
current difficulties are taken into account it is evident that her
effectiveness, efficiency, productivity, occupational
choices,
prospects for promotion and competitiveness has been significantly
compromised by the injuries she had sustained in the
accident. Her
chances for promotion or further career growth have been diminished,
and it is regarded as highly unlikely that she
will be able to remain
employed in her current capacity in the foreseeable future.
From the information on
hand it is clear that the claimant will not be able to obtain
employment in nursing should she lose her
current position. Her
qualifications and training is only related to nursing, which
significantly limits her chances of securing
alternative employment
within the open labour market, especially if her age as well as her
significantly reduced physical, cognitive
and emotional capacity is
considered and her dependence on accommodative employment. In the
event that she therefore loses her
current position,
she
will most likely suffer a total future loss of earnings
."
[2]
[45]
It is of significance that this report has not been placed in dispute
at all.
[46]
A further expert report by an occupational therapist was not disputed
on behalf of the defendant. In this report it is
inter alia
remarked as follows:
"• Sr Nelly,
she has been Ms M's direct supervisor since February 2014.
•
She reports that
her job requirements are to draw files and take bloods from patients.
•
She reports that
the client does not take instructions accurately and takes time to
understand what is being asked of her.
•
The client is
forgetful.
•
Ms M is required
to work in the emergency department however .Sr Nelly reports that
due to her inability to remember emergency protocols,
she is unable
to place her in that department.
•
Currently, Ms M is
in a department whereby she is supervised closely and required to
follow simple step instructions from her supervisor
or doctors.
•
She reports that
the client's concentration is poor and she often does the opposite of
her given instructions or it will take her
time to respond to
instructions. Additionally, Ms M will not be listening to the
instructions given to her.
•
She reported that
the client is currently coping with the basic tasks in the outpatient
department however will be closely supervised
by Sr Nelly herself or
a fellow colleague who will assist her in remembering tasks required
of her.
•
Sr Nelly reports
that there has on occasion, been complaints from doctors regarding
tasks that are incomplete. These include simple,
daily tasks such as
drawing files for patients the following day. She reports that these
tasks would be the responsibility of Ms
M.
•
She reports that
when being disciplined verbally, Ms M would often laugh
inappropriately.
•
She reports that
'time to time' she will complain of a headache however this is 'once
in a while'."
[47]
The report further reads as follows:
"The writer is of
the opinion that the client has the residual physical capacity to do
occasional light physical work. Considering
the above collateral
information as well as the outcome of the occupational therapy
assessment, the client presents with a functional
intermittent
standing tolerance of approximately 1 hour 30 minutes however her
static standing tolerance is considered reduced.
The writer is of the
opinion that several factors influence her inability to maintain a
static standing position for a prolonged
period of time."
[48]
What has been stated above has been common cause during the trial. It
is clear that the plaintiff is unable to function as
a nurse. She has
up to now only survived in her profession with the assistance of her
superiors. She is clearly a danger
to patients. Mr Marx who
appeared on behalf of the plaintiff told me in argument that it is
his duty to provide the reports referred
to above and the other
expert reports to the plaintiff's superiors. She is unable to
function as a nurse. He has advised the plaintiff
to resign from her
job with immediate effect.
[49]
I have been provided by Mr Marx on behalf of the plaintiff with a
Quantum
Actuarial Support report. In this report the current
income of the plaintiff was taken into account. There was a deduction
for contingency
of 10%. This in my view is reasonable under the
circumstances. According to this report the capitalised value of
future earnings
of the plaintiff is R5 010 775,00. That is the amount
claimed by the plaintiff in respect of future loss of earnings.
[50]
I can see no reason why this amount should not be awarded to the
plaintiff. It has been suggested in argument on behalf of
the
defendant that she may for some time continue to work under her
present circumstances. I do not agree. When her superiors see
the
expert reports that Mr Marx is going to forward to them she will most
certainly not be retained.
[51]
I have been urged by mr Marx, who appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff, to award a punitive cost order. It is so that the
defendant
embarked on a fishing expedition. They had no expert
reports and the case of the plaintiff was for all purposes
unchallenged. I
have, however, decided not to adhere to this request.
The extent of the injuries to the plaintiff was only realised at a
late stage.
[51]
In the result the following order is made:
1. The Defendant is
ordered to pay an amount of:
1.1.
General Damages
R 600 000,00
1.2.
Future Loss of Income
R5 010 775,00.
Total
R 5 610 775.00
(Five
million six thousand and ten seven hundred and seventy five Rand),
which amount shall be paid within 14 days of this order
to the credit
of
N G M,
the Plaintiff in the trust account of the
Plaintiff's Attorneys of record,
PAS ATTORNEYS,
Ermelo, whose
trust account details are as follows:
Bank
name :
FNB
Account
type :
Trust account
Branch
code : …
Account
no. :
[…]
Ref
:
DER606/6
2. The Defendant is
ordered to furnish the Trustee (to be appointed in terms of paragraph
8 below) with an Undertaking in terms
of
Section 17(4)(a)
of the
Road
Accident Fund Act, No 56 of 1996
, to compensate the patient for 100%
of the cost of future accommodation in a hospital or nursing home or
treatment of or rendering
of a service or supplying of goods to the
patient resulting from injuries sustained by her as a result of an
accident that occurred
on the 23/12/2005.
3. The Defendant is
ordered to pay the reasonable remuneration of and the reasonable
costs incurred by the Trustee of the Trust
to be formed in
administering and managing the capital amount referred to in
paragraph 1 above, which remuneration and costs shall
not exceed the
equivalent amount which the Curator Bonis would have been entitled in
terms of and as determined by the
Administration of Estates Act,
Nr 66 of 1965,
as amended, and the prescribed tariff applicable
to Curators as contained in the
Government Gazette Notice R1602 of
151 of July 1991,
and, more specifically, paragraphs 3(a) and
3(b) of the schedule thereto; and;
4. The Defendant pays
Plaintiff's taxed or agreed costs on the High Court scale, such costs
will include (but not be limited to):
4.1.
The necessary traveling costs and expenses of the attorney of record,
the reasonable cost on consulting with Plaintiff to consider
this
offer, the cost incurred to accept this offer and make the offer an
order of court;
4.2.
Traveling cost and expenses for Plaintiff to attend all the medical
legal specialist's appointments;
4.3.
Traveling cost and expenses for the Plaintiff to attend the court as
necessary witness on 22/10/2014, 21/05/2015, 25/05/2015
and
26/05/2015;
4.4.
The cost of all medico-legal, radiological, actuarial, addendum and
joint reports obtained by the plaintiff, as well as such
reports
furnished to the defendant and/or to the knowledge of the defendant
and/or its attorneys, as well as all reports in their
possession and
all reports contained in the plaintiff's bundles;
4.5.
The cost of holding all pre-trial conferences, as well as round table
meetings between the legal representatives for both the
plaintiff and
the defendant, including counsel's charges in respect thereof;
4.6.
The cost of preparation of 6 (SIX) trial bundles as agreed upon in
the pre-trial minutes;
4.7.
The reasonable cost associated with inspection in loco,
4.8.
The cost of the qualifying and reservation fee of the specialists, Dr
Enslin, F de Ridder, L Toerien, Dr Mokabane and L van
Gass (Dr Willie
Pretorius);
4.9.
The cost of an interpreter for the trial date of 25/05/2015;
4.10.
The cost of counsel, Mr D J Marx, in his capacity as senior attorney
with right of appearance in the high court which cost
also includes
his day fee for 22/10/2014, 21/05/2015, 25/05/2015 and 26/05/2015.
5. The claimant is
declared incapable of managing this award.
6. On receipt of payment
from the defendant the plaintiff's attorney shall, after deducting
the appropriate amount for fees and
disbursements, immediately
transfer the balance of such monies received, (excluding past medical
expenses, which is to be paid
to the medical fund), to the trustee
for the benefit of the plaintiff, provided the trustee has received a
letter of appointment
from the Master.
7. In the event that the
trust is not formed timeously, the plaintiff's attorney shall invest
the nett capital amount so received
in terms of Section 78(2) of the
Attorneys Act No 53 of 1979, the interest accruing for the benefit of
the plaintiff.
8. The formation of a
Trust, of which the patient shall be the sole beneficiary is hereby
authorised and Mr Gert Kruger of ABSA
Trust Limited shall be
appointed as Trustee.
9. The appointment of the
Trustee is subject thereto that the Trustee furnishes security to the
satisfaction of the Master of the
High Court. It is in the Trustee's
sole and absolute discretion to:
9.1.
Acquire any shares, unit trusts, debentures, stocks, negotiable
instruments, mortgage bonds, notarial bonds, securities, certificates
and any moveable or immovable property or any incorporeal rights and
to invest in such assets and to lend funds to any party or
make a
deposit or investment with any institution, such investment to be of
such nature and on such terms and conditions as the
TRUSTEE may deem
fit.
9.2.
Exchange, replace, re-invest, sell, let, insure, manage, modify,
develop, improve, convert to cash or deal in any other manner
with
any asset which from time to time form part of the TRUST FUNDS:
9.3.
Borrow money.
9.4.
Pledge any trust assets, to encumber such assets with mortgage bonds
or notarial bonds to utilise same as security in any manner
whatsoever.
9.5.
Institute or defend any legal proceedings or otherwise to take any
other steps in any court of law or other tribunal and to
subject
controversies and disagreements to arbitration.
9.6.
To call up and/or collect any amounts that may from time to time
become due to the TRUST FUND.
9.7.
Settle or waive any claim in favour of the trust.
9.8.
Exercise any option and to accept and exercise any rights.
9.9.
Exercise any rights or to incur any obligation in connection with any
shares, stocks, debentures, mortgage bonds or other securities
or
investments held by this trust.
9.10.
Open accounts at any bank or other financial institution and to
manage such accounts and if necessary to overdraw such account.
9.11.
Draw any cheque or promissory note, to execute or endorse same.
9.12.
Take advice from any attorney or advocate or any other expert for the
account of the relevant trust account.
9.13.
Lodge and proof claims against companies in liquidation or under
judicial management and against insolvent or deceased estates.
9.14.
Appoint professional or other persons on a temporary or permanent
basis to conduct the whole or any portion of the business
of the
trust under supervision of the TRUSTEE or to manage the investment of
part or the entirety of the funds of the trust and
to remunerate such
persons for their services out of the funds of the trust.
9.15.
Form any company and to hold any interest in any company and to form
any other trust to hold an interest in any other trust
or partnership
or undertaking for the purposes of this trust or in the interest of
any beneficiary.
9.16.
Amalgamate with any other trust with the same or similar aims as this
trust.
9.17.
Commence any business or continue such business or to acquire, an
interest therein and for such purpose to acquire assets
or to incur
expenses and to partake in the management, supervision and control of
any business and to conclude any partnership
or joint venture.
9.18.
Accept any disposal in favour of this trust and to comply with any
conditions regarding such disposal.
9.19.
In general do all things and to sign all documents required to give
effect to the aims of this trust.
10. No interest will be
payable on the capital sum, provided that payment is made within 14
days of this order. Should payment not
be made timeously, the
Defendant will pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum a
tempora
morae
from date of this order to date of payment.
11. The costs are payable
within 14 days after receipt by the Defendant's Attorneys of the
stamped allocator, whereafter interest
will be charged at 9% per
annum from date of the stamped allocator to date of payment.
Counsel
for Plaintiff: Mr Dirk Marx (082 828 0629)
Counsel
for Defendant: Adv N D Mabaso
BY
ORDER
___________________
REGISTRAR
[1]
My emphasis.
[2]
My emphasis.