About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPJHC 21
|
|
Van Vuuren v Road Accident Fund (2005/925) [2009] ZAGPJHC 21 (29 May 2009)
IN
THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
(JOHANNESBURG)
CASE
NO: 2005/925
In
the matter between:
VAN
VUUREN, MERLE
KATHLEEN
Plaintiff
(formerly
JONES)
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
J
U D G M E N T
SALDULKER,
J
:
A.
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The plaintiff has instituted an
action against the defendant for damages arising from personal
injuries sustained in a collision that occurred on 8 February 2000.
[2]
The defendant’s liability
is not in dispute.
[3]
The quantum of the plaintiff’s
damages is in dispute and the following heads of damage
require
determination:
3.1
Past Hospital and Medical Expenses;
3.2
Past and Future Loss of Earnings;
3.3
General Damages.
[4]
In regard to the plaintiff’s
claim for Future Medical Expenses, the defendant tenders
an
undertaking in terms of
section 17(4)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund
Act, 56 of 1996
( The Act).
[5]
In its amended particulars of
claim the plaintiff claims the following:
5.1
Past loss of earnings
R202 008, 00
5.2
Future loss of earnings R444 019, 00
5.3
General damages
R200 000, 00
[6]
During argument the plaintiff further amended its particulars of
claim on the following basis:
6.1
Past loss of earnings
R302 906
6.2
Future loss of earnings R503,671
[7]
The parties agreed on 15 of the
18 items contained in page 1 of exhibit bundle A. The plaintiff
has
proved claims for past medical expenses in an undisputed amount of
R30 032, 94. However only the amount of R287-80 has not
been proved.
B.
THE EVIDENCE
[8]
The plaintiff testified that she was born on 17 August 1938. On 8
February 2000,she
was driving in Pretorious Street, Pretoria and had
stopped at a robot, when she was involved in a motor collision.
Another motor
vehicle, travelling at a high speed collided with her
vehicle from behind. Ms Ward, a friend, was a passenger in the
vehicle. Immediately
after the collision she was unable to move, and
could not lift her head or her back.
[9]
She suffered acute pain for 2 to 3 days after the collision and
thereafter suffered
severe pain. She suffered pain in her neck, back
and bruising of her leg and knee. She received medical treatment
consisting of
X-rays, medication, a neck collar and physiotherapy She
was unable to take the prescribed medication, as it affected her
stomach
and caused her to experience palpitations. The plaintiff was
referred to a neurologist who diagnosed a complicated or an extended
whiplash injury of her neck. She received physiotherapy for two weeks
and had to discontinue this as she could not afford it.
[10]
She began her career as a cadet nurse in 1955, and pursued a career
in nursing for a number of years. At the time of the collision
she
was doing ‘home baking’ and ‘home nursing’.
She was also nursing Mr Hattingh, Ms Ward’s deceased
husband
but this was not for remuneration as they were planning to set up a
clinic together. She lived with Ms Ward and did not
“pay”
for her board and lodging, Ms Ward provided her with a home, and the
plaintiff in return nursed Mr Hattingh.
[11]
She earned an income from her baking. She had started this home
industry during the 70s. She sold a variety of cakes and earned
a
profit of approximately R200 per month at the time of the
collision.
[1]
She had no records
to reflect this amount as all the relevant receipts and invoices
disappeared when she moved to Lydenburg.
[2]
She was ‘planning’ the setting up of a clinic at the time
of the collision.
[3]
[12]
After the collision she could not continue with her baking
activities.
[4]
This was as a
result of her neck injury and the pain she experienced. Her neck pain
was constant, radiated into her back, shoulders
and down her arms to
her fingers. Her fingertips were very sensitive and as a result she
could not hold a cup without difficulty
or put in the pin numbers of
her prepaid electricity meter. She did not have the same strength in
her hands that she used to prior
to the collision.
[13]
Prior to the collision her health was excellent. She had no pain or
discomfort. Had the accident not occurred, she would have
opened and
conducted a clinic where nursing procedures such as dressings,
injections, blood pressures, testing blood sugars and
the like would
be performed. She had planned this clinic with Ms Ward and they had
discussed this in 1998. She was prevented from
commencing with the
plan prior to the collision as she had been nursing Mr Hattingh.
[5]
She assisted in nursing him from 1997 until 1999 when he died.
[14]
She had applied for a state pension in 1999 and on receipt thereof,
would have saved those funds to buy the necessities for
the clinic
and her re-registration with the nursing council. After the collision
she did not have the physical energy to cope with
this plan. She
would have wanted to work for the rest of her life, nursing and
helping people. She had provided her attorney with
a list of how much
she would charge for nursing procedures at the proposed nursing
clinic which would have yielded her an income
of at least R2 000, 00
per month.
[15]
She had stopped earning an income from her nursing on 31 May 1990.
[6]
She had an investment that she lived off until she applied for a
State pension which was R820.00 per month. She produced a statement
book in which she recorded the patients she invoiced from 1986 until
31 May 1990. There were also two subsequent statements in
the same
book for 4
and
10 January 1999.
[7]
[16]
When the plaintiff was referred to Dr Badenhorst’s recordal in
the MMF1 form that she had underlying osteoporosis
[8]
,
she replied that she had never been diagnosed for it nor treated for
it. When asked to explain why no loss of earnings or income
were
reflected on the MMF1 form, she replied that “…
I
mean I know for definite that I got the pension and they knew how
much it was a month and you know the accident was so great that
I did
not think about the home industry at that time. My concern was the
pain and the agony Mrs Ward was going through took all
concentration
away from me”
[9]
.
[17]
As she was not working at the time, no claim was made in the MMF1
form for loss of earnings arising from the proposed clinic.
[10]
Her loss of earnings related to her baking.
[11]
[18]
She had been self-employed as a private district nurse for most of
her working life. She could not estimate the costs of setting
up the
clinic and had applied for the pension “to be able to help to
get funds so that I could get started with the nursing
side”.
She testified that the proposed clinic was scheduled to be opened on
the 14
February and she had planned to obtain her nursing
certificate during that time.
[19]
The home baking was a hobby that she turned into an income generating
business in 1998.
[12]
Her
clients were those that visited Ms Ward’s salon and neighbours.
As a result of the collision she could not bake anymore.
[13]
She did try to bake after the collision but this was with difficulty
because her fingers were very sensitive and her neck was “the
biggest problem”.
[14]
[20]
She testified that serious plans to set up the clinic began in 1998
but by the time the collision occurred those plans had
not been put
into place, as she was nursing Mr Hattingh. Even though Mr Hattingh
died nine months before the collision the plans
for the clinic had
not been executed. She could not remember whether she told her
attorney about her plans to set up this clinic
and to earn an income
from it because she “was still very dizzy and confused”.
Furthermore she was in pain and concerned
for the health and welfare
of Ms Ward and herself.
[21]
She could not remember informing Dr Kruger about the plans for the
clinic when she saw him in September 2002, but recalled
mentioning to
him that she had intended nursing. She also informed him that she was
receiving a state pension as an income. She
was also referred to Dr
Pienaar’s report where he had recorded “cake decorating”
as a hobby.
[15]
To this she
replied that she had informed him that cake decorating had been a
hobby “
but
I changed that in the 70’s because it was too expensive to do
it as a hobby. I had to do it for an income.”
[22]
She was asked to respond to Dr Pienaar’s opinion that even if
the collision had not occurred she would not have worked
at “this
stage of her life.”
[16]
To this she replied that “
I
will respond to it because we would have had the clinic, it would
have been on going, and we would have been able to employ other
qualified staff to run it and in fact I did have two phone numbers
here of people that were interested when I got too busy to assist
and
to do shifts, and we in turn could have then been able to have help
ourselves when we got older and could not do it, it would
have still
been running. It would have expanded, because our vision was far
greater than just the clinic.”
When it was put to her that the proposed clinic was only “
a
vision and nothing more and nothing less”
,
she replied that “
I
have purchased things, I got the things ready to start the clinic and
these are the only things that I still had to get a re-register.
I
had everything else.”
C.
DEFENDANT
[23]
The defendant closed its case without calling any witnesses.
D.
THE ASSESSMENT
1.
PAST HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EXPENSES
[24]
The plaintiff’s claim for past hospital and medical expenses
ought to be awarded in the amount of R30 032, 14, as the
amount of
R287, 80 has not been proved. The defendant tenders an undertaking in
terms of section 17(4) (a) of the Act in respect
of the Future
Medical Expenses.
2.
GENERAL DAMAGES
[25]
The plaintiff suffered pain and suffering as a result of the soft
tissue injury to her neck and back. She wore a neck collar
for two
weeks and received physiotherapy. Simple tasks like holding a cup and
entering the pin on a pre-paid metre was now difficult.
Her fingers
were sensitive and had no strength. She suffered from constant pain
in her neck which radiated into her shoulders and
into her arms.
However, Dr Kruger was of the opinion that the short-term prognosis
of the neck and back were good, provided she
got the necessary
treatment.
[17]
During Dr
Pienaar’s examination of the plaintiff some 6 years after the
collision, the plaintiff complained of
inter
alia
,
neck pain, limited rotation of the neck, pain and weakness of grip
strength.
[18]
According to the
Joint Minutes of the two experts, Dr Pienaar and Dr Kruger, the pain
that the plaintiff suffers is chronic.
[19]
[26]
The MMF1 claim form records that the plaintiff has
underlying osteoporosis and osteoarthritis.
[20]
At the time of the collision the plaintiff was 61 years old. Prior to
the collision she was pain free and had no discomfort. She
also baked
regularly, from which she earned a meagre income. She has clearly
suffered a significant loss of amenities of life.
According to the
plaintiff she has suffered serious injuries which have resulted in
her being, not only unable to pursue her baking
business, but also
her nursing venture.
CASE
LAW
[27]
In
Jacobs
v Padongelukkefonds
,
2003.The Quantum of Damages, C3-131, Vol 5, a chartered accountant
suffered a whiplash injury of the neck and back, resulting
in chronic
pain in her neck and back and post traumatic stress syndrome, causing
a loss of work capacity of 5%. Enjoyment of outdoor
activities was
curtailed by pain. She was awarded the amount of R80, 000 for general
damages. This amount is equivalent to R103,
000.
[21]
[28]
In
GGMM Janse van Rensburg v The Road Accident Fund
, 2005, The
Quantum of Damages, C3-191, Vol 5, a 71 year old male engineer,
sustained a whiplash injury to the neck. All his hobbies
involved
some physical activity. The injury appeared to be comparatively
minor, but had significant consequences. Movements in
his neck were
severely restricted, he was unable to drive his motor vehicle nor
continue with his work. The court awarded an amount
of R80 000, 00
for general damages. Current value is R95, 000.
[29]
In
Klisiewicz v Road Accident Fund
2000 .The Quantum of
Damages, C3-76, Vol 5, a 44 year old Polish surgeon sustained a
whiplash injury to his neck. He underwent
surgery to fuse the C5 and
C7 vertebrae, but became cyanosed on the operating table and
sustained a measure of brain damage. His
neck movements were
restricted and painful, marked weakness of the right arm, he could no
longer handle fine objects, and there
were cognitive deficits from
the brain injury. The Court awarded an amount of R200 000, 00 in
2000, with a current value of R320
000, 00.
[30]
In De
Barros v Road Accident Fund
, 2001 C&B, C4-13, Vol 5,
a 25 year old rigger employed by Telkom, sustained soft tissue
injuries to his neck and back. He had
10 days bed rest and his neck
pain settled in 6 months. His back pain persisted. He had mild to
moderate depression, anxiety, irritability
and was unable to cope
with day- to- day life. The Court awarded an amount of R85 000, 00
for general damages which is currently
worth R127 000, 00.
[31]
In
Burger v Union National South British Insurance,
1975, C &
B Vol 2. The Quantum of Damages, 462, a 33 year old female sustained
a whiplash injury to her neck. She had substantial
discomfort in her
neck and back, with severe headaches and dizziness. The Court awarded
an amount of R7 000 which has a current
value of R194 000, 00.
[32]
In
Griffiths v Mutual & Federal Insurance
1993, C&B ,
Vol 4,C3-33, a 31 year old female attorney sustained a whiplash
injury to the neck. Permanent disability inasmuch
that she would not
be pain free. Her working capacity was diminished. She tired easily
and could not handle stress at work. The
Court awarded an amount of
R45 000, 00, with a current value of R124 000.
[33]
In my view, taking all of the aforegoing into
account the plaintiff’s injuries, their
sequelae
and the
awards that have been made in the past, a fair and just award for
general damages is an amount of R120 000, 00.
3.
PAST AND FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS
[34]
The plaintiff’s claim is not that she would
have been employed in the open labour market as a nurse
and would
have earned a particular salary and now, as a result of the collision
has suffered a pecuniary loss. The plaintiff’s
claim is that
due to the collision she lost the opportunity to establish a nursing
clinic from which she would have derived an
income.
[35]
Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the
first question to be decided is whether the income the
plaintiff
claims she would have derived from the clinic is a causation or a
quantification issue. Merely because the plaintiff
proves that her
physical disability brings about a reduction in her earning capacity,
should not mean that all that remains is
to quantify her loss. There
must be proof that the reduction in her earning capacity indeed gave
rise to pecuniary loss.
[22]
If
the court is certain that the plaintiff has suffered pecuniary damage
then it is bound to award damages, and the enquiry becomes
quantitative. According to the defendant, the plaintiff would not
have earned R2000 from the clinic as it was just a ”vision”,
and there is no proof that the reduction in earning capacity gave
rise to pecuniary loss. Mr Shepstone for the defendant referred
to
the unreported Supreme Court Of Appeal decision of
Road
Accident Fund v Roman Klisiewicz
[23]
,
Case no 57/2001 delivered on 27 May 2002 , where Howie JA stated at
paragraph 23 as follows:
“
It
was argued for the appellant that the respondent had to prove that it
was probable that he would have passed the examinations,
entered
private practice and succeeded as a busy practitioner. This
submission is, of course, contrary to authority in so far as
it
invokes application of the onus. Once it is clear, as it is, that the
accident has disabled the respondent from working as a
doctor of any
kind, the ascertainment of his lost medical earning capacity (leaving
aside for the moment any possible residual
earning capacity in his
disabled state) is a matter not of causation but of quantification.
That being so, the general practice
in this kind of case is to take
into account future possibilities even if they have not been shown to
be probabilities: Burger
v Union National South British Insurance Co
1
975 (4) SA 72
(W) at 74A- 75H; Blyth v Van den Heever
1980 (1) SA
191
(A) at 225G-226B.”
[36]
In the
Klisiewicz
case the plaintiff had been a neurosurgeon
and as a result of a collision could not earn as a neurosurgeon any
longer. The case
of the plaintiff is in stark contrast to that of Dr
Klisiewicz. The plaintiff was not employed as a nurse nor was she
registered
as such at the time of the collision. She had been last
registered and remunerated as a nurse in 1990, ten years before the
collision.
The plaintiff had not established a nursing clinic prior
to the collision, and was not deriving an income from this venture.
It
cannot then be argued that the collision disabled her from
deriving an income from the establishment of a nursing clinic. This
is therefore a causation issue and the plaintiff bears the
onus
of proving on a balance of probabilities that she would have
established a viable nursing clinic from which she would have earned
R2000 per month.
[37]
In her testimony the plaintiff speculated that had the accident not
occurred they (Ms Ward and herself) were “
planning
”
a clinic and that she would have worked for the rest of her life. The
only evidence of the earning potential of the clinic
was the
plaintiff’s reference to a list of what she would charge for
procedures which list had been sent to her attorneys.
This list was
not produced in evidence. In the report of Mr Jacobson dated 9 June
2006 there is a reference to the costs of such
procedures but these
amounts were not established in evidence. No factual basis was laid
for the conclusion that she would have
earned R2000 per month from
this nursing clinic. The plaintiff also did not call an expert
forensic accountant to give an opinion
on the projected income from
this nursing venture. Her evidence that she was relying on her state
pension to purchase the necessities
for the clinic is naïve and
unconvincing.
[24]
[38]
According to the joint minutes of the experts, they were in agreement
that the plaintiff could not continue with her home industry,
the
cake baking. There is no mention that she could be employed as a
nurse at all nor continue with her “vision” to
set up a
nursing clinic. The first mention by the plaintiff of her “
vision
”
to establish a clinic is on 16 March 2006 when the clinical
examination of the plaintiff by Dr Pienaar took place.
[39]
The MMF1 records that she was not receiving any income prior to the
collision. The plaintiff clearly did not consider at the
time that
the MMF1 was completed, (this is undated and Dr Badenhorst appears to
have signed the medical report attached to the
MMF1 medical report on
24 May 2001), that she had lost any income whether from the baking
activities or from the establishment
of a nursing clinic. When the
plaintiff initially instituted her claim during January 2005, she
claimed the sum of R200 per month
for 60 months for past loss of
earnings. She claimed R200 per month for 20 years for future loss of
earnings. There is no reference
to a claim for past and future loss
of income based on the plaintiff’s inability to render nursing
services in a clinic to
be established by her.
[40]
The plaintiff’s particulars of claim was amended on 19
September 2006. The amounts claimed for past and future loss of
earnings were actuarially assessed by the actuary Mr Gerard Jacobson
on the basis that the plaintiff earned R200 per month from
decorating
cakes and that the plaintiff was at the time of the collision in the
process of setting up a private clinic, salon and
a day- care
facility for elderly people and would have earned R2000 per month
from this venture.
[41]
The plaintiff’s explanation for not telling
her attorneys of her plans for the establishment of the
clinic, as
her main concern was for her and Ms Ward’s physical condition
and that she was still suffering from spells of
confusion and
dizziness, is implausible and is rejected. The plaintiff did not
produce any objective evidence of her plan to set
up the clinic in
the form of a business plan. The court was not appraised of the
expected set-up costs and her ability to meet
these expenses.
[42]
In my view, other factors militate against the plaintiff succeeding
in getting her “
vision
”,
of the nursing clinic, off the ground. The plaintiff was 61 years old
at the time of the collision. At that stage she was
already suffering
from osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and tremors of her hands and head,
which was also visible in court. The plaintiff
conceded under
cross-examination that the tremors existed prior to the collision
[25]
and that the tremors
began after a dog bite incident in 1981. According to Dr Pienaaar
“even had the accident of 8/2/2000
not occurred, Mrs Jones
would not have been working at this stage of her life”.
[26]
[43]
It is the plaintiff’s testimony that she stopped earning an
income as a nurse during May 1990. The plaintiff testified
that she
did not commence with the nursing business due to her taking care of
Mr Hattingh, Ms Ward’s husband on a full time
basis, since
1997, for which she was not remunerated, and who passed away in May
1999, nine months before the collision. From the
book that she
produced in court she saw two patients in 1999 but did not charge
them, as she had not re-registered as a nurse.
In fact the plaintiff
had ample time and opportunity to re- register as a nurse, to take up
nursing again and to put her plans
of setting up a nursing clinic
into action but she did not do so. At the time of the collision she
had not re-registered as a nurse.
[44]
In these circumstances her testimony that she would have been able to
generate an income of R2000 per month from February 2000
from the
clinic that would be established, from which she would derive an
income for various nursing procedures, is without substance,
as she
would first have had to re- register as a nurse to pursue this
nursing venture, which she clearly made no effort to do.
[45]
Although the plaintiff gave extensive detail of her experience and
training as a nurse from 1955 up to 1990, it does not mean
that this
would have been the most probable employment route for her, taking
into account her age, her medical condition, her tremors
and the fact
that she did not actively pursue her “vision” of the
clinic. The fact that the plaintiff at the age of
60 was nursing Mr
Hattingh who was bedridden and coped with these duties, is no
indication that she would have coped with a nursing
clinic which was
open to the public, requiring in all probability more effort, time
and energy.
[46]
The possibility of the plaintiff establishing the nursing clinic is
very remote. There is even a lesser possibility that she
would be
able to derive an income of R2 000 from the clinic. It is also
doubtful whether the plaintiff would have been able to
work after the
normal retirement age of 65. It has not been established that the
plaintiff has suffered a loss of income in regard
to her claim that
she would have generated an income from the proposed clinic.
Furthermore the plaintiff placed no evidence to
assist this court in
quantifying these damages. In view of all the aforegoing the
plaintiff has not proven on a balance of probabilities
that she would
have established a nursing clinic and her claim for loss of income in
this regard must therefore fail.
[47]
During argument the parties were requested to
instruct an actuary to prepare calculations for the plaintiff’s
loss of earnings. The actuary, Mr Jacobson,
[27]
calculated the loss of earnings,
inter
alia
on the
nursing
basis
(Basis A) and on the “cake bake basis” (Basis B).
[48]
As the plaintiff has failed to establish on a
balance of probabilities that she planned to open a nursing
clinic,
it is not necessary to have any regard to Basis A.
[28]
[49]
The plaintiff testified that at the time of the collision she was
doing cake baking and decorating from which she earned approximately
R200 per month. Initially this used to be a hobby which became an
income generating business.
[50]
When the plaintiff’s claim was instituted against the defendant
during January 2005 her claim for past and future loss
of earnings
was calculated at the rate of R200 per month.
[29]
It is her testimony that she earned this from her baking business. I
am aware that this amount has not been quantified and no documentary
proof has been submitted in this regard. It must be borne in mind
that this was a home industry being conducted from home. Her
clients
included those who attended Ms Ward’s salon. This was not a
high income generating business, but a small home baking
industry. It
was a cake baking and decorating business informal in nature, which
had been converted from a hobby to a home industry
to generate an
income, albeit a meagre one. The amount of R200 per month appears in
these particular circumstances to be reasonable.
E.
CONCLUSION
[51]
I accept the plaintiff’s evidence in regard to the income that
she generated from the home industry baking activities
prior to the
collision. The possibility is remote that she would have taken up any
other forms of employment on a large scale.
Basis B
[30]
which is only in respect of cake baking until the time of age 67
appears to me to be the most reasonable aspect of the plaintiff’s
continued generation of income into her old age. Both Dr Pienaar and
Dr Kruger are of the opinion that the plaintiff will not be
able to
continue with her home industry. According to Mr Jacobson this loss
of income amounts to R16 432, 00. The state pension
that the
plaintiff is receiving has not been accounted for in calculating
Basis B since, according to Mr Jacobson, the plaintiff
in this
instant would have been entitled to the state old age pension but for
the accident as well. In view of all the aforegoing,
the plaintiff
succeeds in her claim for past and future loss of income from her
cake baking activities.
F.
ORDER
In
the result, I make the following order:
1.
The defendant is ordered to pay
compensation to the plaintiff in the following amounts:
Past Hospital and Medical
Expenses R30, 032,14
Past and Future Loss of
Income
R16, 432,00
General
Damages
R120 000, 00.
TOTAL
R166, 464, 14
2. The amount of R166,
464, 14 is to be paid into the trust account of the Plaintiff’s
attorney of record.
3. The defendant is to
pay interest on the aforesaid amount of R166, 464, 14 at the rate of
15, 5% per annum calculated 14 days
from the date of judgment to date
of final payment.
4. The defendant is
ordered to furnish to the Plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)
(a) of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
, for the
future medical expenses, and to pay the costs of future accommodation
of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home,
or treatment or
rendering of a service to her, or supplying of goods to her, arising
out of the injuries the plaintiff sustained
in the motor vehicle
collision on 8 February 2000.
5. The defendant is
ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed costs on a party and party
High Court scale, including the qualifying
fees, if any, of the
plaintiff’s experts namely Dr P P Kruger and Mr Gerard
Jacobson.
_________________________
H
SALDULKER
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
[1]
Record,p17,lines9-21
[2]
Record,
p30, lines10-16
[3]
Record.p21,lines
3-25
[4]
Record,
p17, lines 22-25
[5]
Record,p23,lines1-25
[6]
Record,
p29, lines 20-21
[7]
Record,
p32, lines 17-22
[8]
Exhibit
A, p19, para 11
[9]
Record,
p 42-45
[10]
Record,
p 55, lines 17-25; p 56, 1-7; 20-25
[11]
Record,
p 55, lines 12-19
[12]
Record,
p 49, lines 8-20
[13]
Record,
p 18, lines 1-20
[14]
Record,
p 49, lines 20-25
[15]
Exhibit A, Dr Pienaar report, p 40
[16]
Exhibit A,
Dr
Pienaar report, p 46
[17]
Dr
Kruger – report, p30-Exhibit A.
[18]
Dr
Pienaar- report, p45- Exhibit A
[19]
Exhibit
A – Joint Minute at p15-C
[20]
Exhibit
A p19,para11
[21]
Robert Koch- The Quantum Yearbook, 2008
[22]
Rudman
v Road Accident fund 200392) SA 234 (SCA), at para11.
[23]
Appeal
from the court a quo, supra, para 28
[24]
Record,
p 24, lines 1-9
[25]
Record,
p63,lines 6-20
[26]
Dr
Pienaar’s report,p46
[27]
This
actuarial report was handed in with the plaintiff’s
supplementary heads of argument and is marked Exhibit X.
[28]
Exhibit
X, Mr Jacobson, p 5-7
[29]
Exhibit
B, p5
[30]
Exhibit
X, Mr Jacobson’s report, p 8