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 1120
|
|
M obo D v Road Accident Fund (76521/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1120 (21 August 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
GAUTENG
DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Case
No: 76521/2013
Not
Reportable
Not
of Interest to other judges
M,
K. R. o.b.o
SD
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
DATE
OF
HEARING
12
AUGUST
2015
DATE
OF
JUDGMENT
21 AUGUST
2015
JUDGMENT
MANAMELA
AJ
Introduction
[1] The
plaintiff in this third party compensation matter acts in her
personal capacity and also as mother and natural guardian
of her
minor child, S. D. M. (the minor child). The minor child was born on
[....] 2002 and therefore has just had his 13th birthday.
He suffered
injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident on 22 September 2010. He
was a pedestrian at the time of the accident.
I was informed by
counsel at the hearing of this matter that the defendant conceded
merits and acknowledged liability in respect
of the negligence of the
insured driver.
[2] The
trial in this matter was limited to the determination of an
appropriate award for the minor child's future loss of earnings
or
earning capacity and general damages. The defendant had agreed to
furnish an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the
Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
in respect of the costs of the future
accommodation of the minor child in a hospital or nursing home or
treatment. I will include
this undertaking as part of the order made
in this matter.
Injuries
and Sequelae
[3]
The
injuries
suffered by
the
minor
child
are
common
cause
between
the parties
and
are
as
follows:
a
moderate
diffuse
concussive
brain
injury;
an
open compound fracture of the
left lower leg; and an injury to the right eye.
[1]
The
sequelae
of the injuries are
as follows: diminished hearing, cavus deformity with supination of
the foot and an inverted stiff ankle; recurrent
ulceration of left
lower leg;
shortening
of the left leg; psychological shock and
trauma, and severe scarring.
[2]
[4] The
minor child was examined by the relevant experts employed by the
plaintiff and the defendant. Counsel confirmed that the
parties
agreed at the pre-trial conference held in July 2015 to limit the
issues. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, the defendant
admitted
the contents of the plaintiff's medico-legal or experts' reports and
agreed that the contents of the reports
can
be accepted as evidence or
equivalent
to a statement
of facts
in terms
of
Rule 33 of the
Uniform
Rules of this court.
[3]
Therefore, what appears below from experts' reports, to the extent
that there
is
consensus amongst experts, is
common cause.
Orthopaedic
Injuries
[5]
The minor child was seen by Dr
DA Birrell, an orthopaedic surgeon in August 2013 and January
2015.
He noted from the initial
consultation that the minor child walked with "a marked
l
eft-legged
limp"
[4]
;
has "a virtually
stiff left ankle"
[5]
and has "a supination
of
the
left foot".
[6]
Although
Dr
Birrell
initially
noted the
leg
length
to
be
equal,
[7]
he later
noticed
that
the
minor
child's
leg
length
has altered
or
shortened since
the initial
examination.
[8]
[6]
He concluded that the injuries
sustained by
the
minor child have had a serious effect on him physically
"in
the sense of the full and proper
use of his left lower
leg
and
this will continue into adulthood, despite treatment that we might
recommen
d
"
.
[9]
[my emphasis] The minor child
will not be able to perform any physical work or work of
a
labouring
nature.
[10]
He
will
not
be
an
equal
competitor in
the
open
labour market.
[11]
Dr
Birrell
also
reported
that
the
minor
child
will
continue
to
experience chronic pain
and symptomatology in
the left
l
eg.
[7]
Regarding loss of amenities, Dr Birrell stated that, according to the
minor child he
had
a
normal
life
pre-accident
with
normal
engagements
in
school
and
play activities, but now has
left leg limitations. He cannot run,
jump or jog properly due to his
injuries from the accident.
[12]
However, the minor child is still able to ride a bicycle or play
cricket, even though Dr Birrell thinks the latter is only on a
social
basis. Dr Birrell recommended adjusted footwear (either rocker bottom
shoe or a raised heel) to augment problems relating
to
the leg length
or limp.
[8]
Dr
Birrel's
opinion
is that,
"in
all probability"
the
minor
child
would
not work even in a sedentary
position beyond the age of 55.
[13]
His loss of work capacity -
in a
purely
sedentary
position
-
would
initially
be
in the
region
of
8% to
10%,
but will gradually increase.
[14]
Dr Birrell
stabilised
this at 10%
after
the follow-up examination, but
still
confirmed the
gradual increase.
[15]
[9]
Although
Dr Birrell is not necessarily
an expert on this,
he stated that "it has
been established that the patient's eyesight has not been adversely
affected by the accident".
[16]
This was
also
confirmed
by the
ophthalmic
surgeon,
Dr P Gous.
[17]
Dr
Gous diagnosed a low-grade
myopia with some accommodation
spasm, but stated that this is
physiological and unrelated to the accident.
[18]
His prognosis was that he does
not foresee any impact on the minor child's visual system due to the
accident and he
would
therefore be
able
to compete normally in
the open market.
[19]
[10]
From
an
orthopaedic
point
of
view,
the
minor
child
would
require
further
surgery in the future.
He would therefore experience
acute plus moderate pain. He will "always" experience a
degree of chronic pain "to
a lesser or greater extent in
the left leg".
[20]
[11]
According to Mr PB
White, a plastic and
reconstructive surgeon, there will be recurrent ulceration of the
skin-grafted
area
of the left lower leg
that
would necessitate
"conservative
and operative
intervention".
[21]
Neurological
Complaints and Brain Injury
[12]
Professor VU
Fritz, a neurologist examined
the minor child on 18 June 2013 and again on 30 June 2015. Prof Fritz
did not have much material to
work on during the first examination of
the minor child, but had several medico-legal reports during the
second examination
in
2015.
Prof
Fritz stated that her earlier conclusion of the existence of a mild
diffuse concussive brain injury
was confirmed by Dr Mazabow, Dr Fleming and Professor
Fritz.
[22]
This was
largely based on narrations of
the mother.
According
Dr
Mazabow
from
the
narration
by
the
minor
child's
mother
and
the hospital records are
suggestive of
a
moderate concussive brain
injury.
Further
issues and opinions on Sequelae to the Injuries
[13]
Ms A Greeff, an occupational
therapist, assessed the minor child in May 2015 and prepared a report
dated 24 June 2015. She agreed
with the views expressed by Dr
Birrell, the orthopaedic surgeon that the minor child will not secure
suitability for occupation
that
falls in
light, moderate nor heavy
physical ranges.
[23]
[14]
According to Ms E Noble, an
industrial psychologist, when regard is had to the accident,
the
minor
child's
main
problems
when
choosing
his
senior
secondary subjects and tertiary
studies will be his orthopaedic
sequelae.
[24]
He has to choose a
career
limited
by his physical
limitations.
The
physical
limitations
may even
affect mainly sedentary jobs
like in marketing (due to driving distances) or teaching (due to
standing).
[25]
Claim
and Damages
Future
Loss of Earnings
[15]
The court had the benefit of an
actuarial report prepared by GA Whittaker, an actuary of Algorith
Consultants and Actuaries, dated
21 July 2015. He prepared the
actuarial report for the plaintiff. The defendant did not
file any actuarial report, but
Mr F.J
Kokela
appearing for the plaintiff made oral submissions challenging parts
of the actuarial
report.
Mr S.
Maritz appeared
on
behalf
of the
plaintiff
and
made submissions
in protection
of
the
methods
applied
and
conclusions
reached
in the actuarial report. The
capital values in the report have been determined or calculated as
at
01
September 2015.
[26]
[16]
Perhaps, I
should state a few words on the
status of actuarial reports in courts of las. Actuarial expertise
generally benefits the court when
making determinations. However, the
learned authors of
Visser
&
Potgieter
Law of Damages
[27]
at page 467
state authoritatively
that:
"An
actuary is an expert witness whose opinion is merely part of all of
the other evidence before this court,
to be
given greater or lesser weight
according to the
circumstances
of the case. The calculations and evidence of an actuary often plays
an important role."
[I
omitted the accompanying footnotes]
Further,
the following from the seminal work, the
Law
of Third-Party Compensation
[28]
by
Professor HB Klepper is of significance:
"Of
course, the
actuarial
report
is only
used
as a base
and
does
not
in
any
way
bind, the court's inherent
discretion to asses such damages.
"
[29]
[I
omitted the accompanying footnotes]
[17]
In terms
of the
actuarial
report the
minor
child
would
enter
the job
market
on
01
July
2027
and
retire
at
the
age
of
55.
Ms
Noble,
the
industrial
and
counselling psychologist
recommended
that
there
be a
higher
post-accident
contingency
due
to
the
minor
child's
significant
Whole
Person
Impairment
(of
51% according to
Dr
Birrell
and
21% according
to
Dr
DE Gantz
[30]
)
which
would
significantly
limit
the
minor
child's
career choice;
his pain and discomfort which
would
negatively
influence
his productivity,
motivation;
interpersonal
relationships
and absenteeism.
[31]
[18] The
Whittaker actuarial report applied a staggered approach of
contingencies. This it
is
submitted is
to
accommodate the
gradual loss
of
work capacity as prognosed by
Dr Birrell from around 10%
and
with a gradual increase until
the minor child's
retirement
at the
age
of
55. The
pre-accident
contingencies
applied
to the
earnings are 15%
throughout
until retirement.
For post-accident earnings the
contingencies
start
at
35%
therefore
making
it
a
20%
contingency
spread
when considering the
pre-accident contingency of 5%.
The
contingencies on
post-accident earnings increase
by 10%
every
10
years
from 35% (from career entry to age of 30); 45% (from age 30
to age of 40); 55% (from age 40
to age of 50) up to 65% (from age 50 to retirement at age 55). The
contingency spread is therefore
20% (from career entry to age of 30);
30% (from age 30 to age of 40); 40% (from age 40 to age of 50) up
to 50% (from age 50
to retirement at age 55).
[32]
[19] The
monetary results of the above stated contingencies
on the post-accident earnings
are that the following amounts are proposed by the actuary:
R290 579.00 from career entry
to age of 30; R511
445.00
from age 30 to age of 40; R635 034.00 from age 40 to age of 50 and R1
121, 546.00 from age 50 to retirement at age 55. The
total net loss
for future earnings is
proposed at R2
558 604.00.
[33]
[20]
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the contingencies should
start at a spread of 10% and not 20% as stated in the report.
He
argued that this is what was proposed by Dr Birrell. Counsel for the
plaintiff countered this submission by stating that Dr
Birrell's
opinion has a bearing on the orthopaedic injuries and their
sequelae.
I find this submission by the plaintiff's counsel not to
be fully accurate. The actuary actually relied on Ms Noble's report
on
the need for a higher contingency, but Ms Noble's report is
non-resolute on the actual percentage of the contingency and refer
to
the
10%
suggested
by
Dr
Birrell.
[34]
Ms
Noble
actually
concedes
that
the
non- orthopaedic
injuries
being the
psychological
problems
"should
be
considered
over
and
above
this,
although
this
is expected
to
improve
with
the recommended
therapy,
while his complaints
regarding
vision
and hearing
is
ignored' .
[35]
[21] The
minor child would start his career in 2025 at 23 years of age after
obtaining a B.Tech degree. He was born on [....] 2002.
By the age of
30 he would only have worked for about 7 years albeit a year late in
entering the market. Therefore, in my view a
contingency spread of
only 10% is appropriate for the career entry to age 30 and with a
progression of 10% every year. Therefore,
I have reworked the
monetary results of the above stated contingencies on the post-
accident earnings as follows: R218 872.00 from
career entry to
age of 30; R355 868.00 from age 30 to age of 40;
R481 227.00 from age 40 to age of 50 and
R1 057 807.00 from age 50 to
retirement at age 55. The total net loss for future earnings is
proposed at R2 113 774.00. The aforesaid
amount reflects a final
contingency spread of 40%. I have not allotted myself actuarial
skills and therefore to the extent there
is a discrepancy in the
recalculation of the contingencies and the awarded amount, the
awarded amount should be considered the
result of the exercise of my
discretion.
General
Damages
[22]
According to the experts the
general damages are
warranted
on
three narratives. Firstly,
when considering that the minor
child has had a serious long term impairment
or
loss
of
body
function
with
the left
leg
injury.
Secondly, he
has permanent
serious
disfigurement
of
his
left
leg.
Thirdly,
neuropsychological assessments
point to
variable concentration
and
attention which
are
long term
in
nature
and
his
post-traumatic
stress
disorder.
[36]
[23]
The minor child
reports frequent
headaches
in the
left side of his head on a
daily basis. He also reported that his hearing is poor in the right
ear and that he also experiences
tinnitus
in that
ear
(he
reports
a
"zinging"
sound).
He also
has
nose bleeds about three times a
week.
[37]
As stated above, the plaintiff experienced pain at the
time
of
the
collision,
after
the
collision,
including
during
medical
or
surgical procedures
and
will
continue
to
experience
pain.
He fatigues
easily
and
there
is increased
stress and anxiety
with an
ongoing fear of
traffic.
[38]
[24] With
regard to the minor child's loss of amenities of life and
psychological impairments, I refer to the statements of Watermeyer
JA
in
Sandler
v
Wholesale
Coal
Supplies
Ltd
1941
AD
at 1999, in calculation of these heads of damages, when he
stated:
".........
it must be recognised that though the law attempts to repair the
wrong done to a sufferer who has received personal
injuries in an
accident by compensating him in money, yet there are no scales by
which pain and suffering can be measured, and
there is no
relationship between pain and money which makes it possible to
express the one in terms of the other with any approach
to certainty.
The amount to be awarded as compensation can only be determined by
the broadest general considerations and the
figure
arrived
at
must
necessarily
be
uncertain,
depending
upon
the
judge's view
of
what is fair in all the circumstances
of
the case."
[39]
[25]
Counsel referred me to comparable cases or previous awards and I am
grateful for this. However, it is trite that these awards
can only
offer broad and general guidelines in view of the differences from
one matter to the other. In
Protea
Assurance
Co.
Ltd
v Lamb
1971 (1) SA 530
(A) Potgieter JA stated:
"...to
the
limited extent
and
subject
to
the
qualifications therein set
forth,
the
trial
Court
or
the
Court
of
Appeal, as
the
case
may
be,
may
pay
regard
to
comparable cases.
It
should be emphasised,
however, that this process
of
comparison does not take the form of a meticulous
examination
of awards made
in other cases to fix the
amount of compensation ..."
[40]
[26]
Besides the comparable previous awards I was referred to by counsel,
in the most, were about cases involving claimants with
either
multiple injuries or severe brain injuries or a mixture of both and
sequelae
of those injuries. The injuries suffered by the minor
child - although of a serious nature - are limited to the left lower
leg;
a mild diffuse concussive brain injury and the
sequelae
to those injuries.
[27]
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, a fair compensation for in
respect of general damages would be a median of R1 200
000.00 and
R800 000.00. Counsel for the defendant suggested an amount of R800
000.00 would be appropriate. Therefore, considering
the aforesaid and
comparable awards, I fix the amount in the sum of R800 000.00 as
appropriate award in respect of general damages
suffered by the minor
child.
Conclusion
[28]
Therefore, the total damages the plaintiff is entitled to is in the
amount of R2 913 774.00, made up of an award in respect
of future
loss of earnings in an amount of R2 113 774.00 and general damages in
an amount of R 800 000.00.
[29] This
is further to the undertaking [in terms of
section 17(4)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
] to pay the cost of future medical
and hospital expenses.
Order
[30] I
therefore make the following order:
1.
The Defendant
shall
pay
the
total
sum
of
R2 913
774.00
(two
million
nine
hundred and thirteen
thousand seven
hundred
and seventy
four
rand)
to the
Plaintiff's
attorneys,
Adams
& Adams,
in settlement
of
the
Plaintiff's
action in
her
representative
capacity in
respect
of
S. D. M., which
amount
is calculated
as follows:
1.1.
General
damages:
R 800
000.00
(eight
hundred
thousand
rand);
1.2.
Loss
of
earnings/Earn
i
ng
capacity:
R2
1
1
3
774.00
(two
million
one
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
seven
hundred
and
seventy
four
rand);
The
aforementioned total sum of R2
913 774.00 (two million
nine hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
seven
hundred
and
seventy
four
rand)
shall
be
payable
by
direct
transfer
into
the
trust
account
of
Adams
&
Adams,
details
of
which
are
as
follows:
Account
holder :
Adams
&
Adams
Trust
Account
Bank
:
Nedbank
Branch
:
Pretoria
Branch
code
:
198765
Account
number
:
[……………]
Reference
: DBS/KW/MK/P654
2.
The Defendant shall
furnish the Plaintiff
with an undertaking
in
terms of Section
17(4)(a)
in
respect
of
100% of
the
costs
of
the
future
accommodation
of
the S. D. M. in a hospital or nursing home or treatment of or
rendering of a service or supplying of goods to him after the costs
have been incurred and on proof thereof, resulting from the accident
that occurred on 22 September 2010.
3.
The
Defendant
is liable
to cover
100%
of the
reasonable
costs of the Trustee
appointed
in terms
of
paragraph
4
hereof,
in respect
of
establishing
a Trust for
S. D. M., and
any other
reasonable
costs that the
Trustee may
incur
in
the
administration thereof
including
his/her
fees in this
regard, which
costs
shall
include:
3.1.
The
monthly
premium
that
is
payable
in
respect
of
the
insurance
cover which
is
to
be
taken
out
by
the
Trustee
to
serve
as
security in
terms
of
the Trust
Deed;
3.2.
The
costs
associated
with
the
yearly audit
of
the
Trust by
a
chartered accountant
as
determined
in the
Trust
Deed
but which
costs
shall
be
subject to the following:
3.3.
The fees
and
administration
costs
shall
be determined
on the
basis of the directives
pertaining to curator's
remuneration
and the furnishing
of security
in accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Administration of
Deceased
Estate Act, 66 of
1965, as amended from
time to time;
3.4.
All
the
above
mentioned
costs
shall
be
limited
to
payment
of
the reasonable
costs
which
the
Defendant
would
have
had
to
pay
regarding
appointment, remuneration and disbursements had the Trustee
been appointed as a
Curator
Bonis.
4.
The net proceeds of the payment referred to in paragraph 1
above as well as the taxed or agreed party and party costs payable by
the Defendant, after deduction of the Plaintiff's attorney and own
client legal costs (the "capital amount"), shall be
payable
to a Trust, to be established within six months of the date of this
order, subject to the following:
4.1.
such Trust will be based on a trust deed containing the
provisions as more fully set out in the draft Trust Deed attached
hereto
marked as Annexure
"A"'
and initialled;
4.2.
such Trust shall have, as its main objective, the controlling
and administration of the capital amount on behalf of S. D. M.;
4.3.
The Trustee,
Righardt
Hendrik
Bezuidenhout,
to be appointed within the aforementioned six month time
period, will have powers and abilities as set out in the draft Trust
Deed
attached hereto, marked as Annexure
"A"
and initialled;
4.4.
the trustee(s) will be obliged to furnish security to the
satisfaction of the Master of the High Court of South Africa for the
assets
of the Trust and for the due compliance of all his/her
obligations towards the trust.
5.
The Trustee is authorised to pay the Plaintiff's attorney and
own client costs out of the Trust funds in so far as any payments in
that regard are still outstanding after the establishment of the
Trust.
6.
Should the aforementioned Trust not be established within the six
month period, the Plaintiff is directed
to approach the court within
six months thereafter in order to obtain further directives in
respect of the manner in which the
capital amount is to be utilized
in favour of S. D. M.;
7.
Until such time as the Trustee is able to control the capital sum and
to deal with same in terms of the trust deed,
the Plaintiff's
attorneys (Adams
&
Adams)
are:
7.1.
authorised to invest the capital amount in an interest bearing
account in terms of Section 78(2A) of the Attorneys Act
to the
benefit of S. D. M. with a registered banking institution pending the
finalisation of the directives referred to in paragraph
4 above;
7.2.
authorised and ordered to make any reasonable payments to satisfy any
of S. D. M. needs that may arise and that are required
in order to
satisfy any reasonable need for treatment, care, aids or equipment
that may arise in the interim.
7.3.
prohibited from dealing with the capital amount in any other
manner unless specifically authorised thereto by this
court,
subject to the provisions contained in paragraphs 4 - 7 hereof.
8.
The
Defendant
shall
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:-
8.1.
The
fees
of
Senior
-
Junior
Counsel
on the
High
Court
Scale
inclusive
of but
not
limited
to
counsel's
full
trial
day
fees
for
12 August
2015
respectively,
as well
as
his fee for the
preparation
of
heads of argument,
if any;
8.2.
The
reasonable,
taxable
costs of
obtaining
all expert,
medico-legal,
RAF4 and actuarial
reports which
were
furnished
to the
Defendant;
8.3.
The
costs
associated
with
the
arranging
of
joint meetings
of
the
parties' experts
and the obtaining
of
minutes thereof;
8.4.
The
reasonable,
taxable
preparation,
qualification,
travelling
and reservation
fees, if
any,
of
the
following
experts
of
whom notice
have
been given,
being:-
8.4.1.
Dr
Birrell (Orthopaedic
Surgeon);
8.4.2.
Dr White
(Plastic
&
Reconstructive
Surgeon);
8.4.3.
Dr
PNJ Gouws
(Plastic
&
Reconstructive
Surgeon);
8.4.4.
Dr
0
Guy
(Speech
Therapist);
8.4.5.
Prof Fritz (Neurologist);
8.4.6.
Dr
Mazabow
(Clinical
Neuropsychologist);
8.4.7.
Dr
D Shevel
(Psychiatrist);
8.4.8.
Dr
K
Havenga
(Counselling
Psychologist)
8.4.9.
Ms
B Purchase
(Educational
Psychologist;
8.4.10.
Ms Gropp
(Occupational
Therapist);
8.4.11.
Ms Greet
(Occupational
Therapist);
8.4.12.
Ms
E Noble (Industrial
Psychologist);
8.4.13.
G Whittaker
(Actuary).
8.5.
The costs
of a
consultation between
the Plaintiff
and her
attorneys to
discuss
the
terms of this
order;
8.6.
The
reasonable
costs
of
all consultations
between the
Plaintiff,
and/or
her counsel
and/or
his attorneys
in preparation for
the
hearing;
8.7.
The
reasonable,
taxable
accommodation
and transportation
costs (including
Toll gates and
E-Toll charges)
incurred
by or
on
behalf
of
the Plaintiff
in
attending
all
medico-legal
consultations
with
the
parties'
experts,
all consultations
with
his
legal
representatives
and the
court
proceedings,
subject to the
discretion
of the Taxing
Master;
8.8.
The Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees for drafting the
trust deed;
8.9.
The above costs shall also be paid into the aforementioned trust
account;
8.10.
It is recorded that the Plaintiff's Klerksdorp attorneys act in terms
of a valid contingency fee agreement
and shall be entitled to invoice
the Plaintiff for services rendered in accordance with same.
9.
The following provisions shall apply with regards to the
determination of the aforementioned taxed or agreed costs:-
9.1.
The Plaintiff shall serve the notice of taxation on the Defendant's
attorney of record;
9.2.
The Plaintiff shall allow the Defendant 7 (SEVEN) court days to make
payment of the taxed costs from
date of settlement or taxation
thereof;
9.3.
Should payment not be effected timeously, the Plaintiff shall be
entitled to recover interest at the rate
of 9% on the taxed
allocaturs
or
settlement to date of final payment costs from date of
_______________________
K.LA.M
MANAMELA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
[1]
See
para [9] below. According to Dr Gous, the minor child's eye problem
is unrelated to the vehicle accident.
[2]
See
para 6 of the particulars of claim on indexed pp 5 -6; para 10 of
the plaintiff's heads of argument.
[3]
See
para 7 of the plaintiff's heads of argument.
[4]
See
para 8 of Dr DA Birrell's medico-legal report dated 1August
2013
(Birrell's initial report) on indexed p 6.
[5]
Birrell's
initial report on indexed p 7.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Birrell's
initial report on indexed p 9.
[8]
See
para
7
of
Dr
DA
Birrell's
addendum
medico-legal
report
dated
13
January
2015
(Birrell's
addendum
report)
on indexed p 38 wherein it is stated that on CT scanogram the minor
child's left tibia is 1.39 cm shorter than the
right.
[9]
Birrell's
initial report on indexed p 10.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Birrell's
initial report on indexed p
1
6.
[12]
Birrell's
initial
report
on
indexed
pp
13
-
1
4.
[13]
Birrell's initial
report on indexed p 17.
[14]
Birrell's
initial report on indexed p
1
7.
[15]
Birrell's
addendum report on indexed p 44.
[16]
Birrell's
addendum report on indexed p 40.
[17]
Birrell's
addendum report on indexed p
41.
[18]
See
a report dated
21
October
2013
by
Dr Petrus Gous on indexed p
62.
[19]
Gous'
report on indexed pp
62
- 63.
[20]
Birrell's
addendum report on indexed p 41.
[21]
See
Mr
P.B.White's
medico-legal report
dated
1
August
2013
appearing
on
indexed
pp
54
-
56.
[22]
See
Professor VU Fritz's follow-up report dated 30 June 2015 on indexed
p
1
39.
[23]
See
Ms A Greeff (occupational therapist) medico-legal report 24 June
2015 on indexed P 307.
[24]
See Ms E Noble
(industrial psychologist) medico-legal report prepared after
consulting with the minor child on 02 June 2015 on
indexed p 326.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
See
GA Whittaker (actuary) report dated 21
July
2015 on indexed p 330.
[27]
See Potgieter JM, Steynberg L and Floyd TB Visser &
Potgieter Law of Damages (3'd edition) (Juta Cape
Town
2012)
[28]
See
Klapper HB
Law
of Third-Party Compensation
(3'd
edition)
(LexisNexis Durban 2012).
[29]
See
Law
of Third-Party Compensation
on
p
1
77.
[30]
See
Dr DE Gantz (orthopaedic surgeon) medico-legal report of examination
conducted on 22 October 2014
on
indexed p 11(of defedants' experts bundle).
[31]
See
Noble report on indexed p 327.
[32]
See
Whittaker's actuarial report on indexed pp 332.
[33]
See
Whittaker's actuarial report on indexed pp 333.
[34]
See
Noble report on indexed p 327.
[35]
See Noble report on indexed p 327.
[36]
See
Professor VU Fritz's follow-up report dated 30 June 2015 on indexed
p
1
41.
[37]
See
Dr
M Mazabow
(registered
clinical psychologist)
medico-legal
report dated
1
4
July 2013 on indexed P 149.
[38]
See Ms BL Purchase (educational psychologist) medico-legal report
dated 18 May 2015 on indexed p 250.
[39]
As
quoted
in the judgment
of
the
Kroon
J
in
TL
Aeschliman
v
RAF
(unreported
case
number
1378/2007
of the Eastern Cape High
Court,
PE) at para 66.
[40]
Protea Assurance
Co. Ltd v Lamb at 535H to 536 A.