About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAECMKHC 87
|
|
N.P.S obo Z.S v Road Accident Fund (3614/2021) [2024] ZAECMKHC 87 (13 August 2024)
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
[EASTERN CAPE
DIVISION, MAKHANDA]
CASE NO.: 3614/2021
In the matter between: -
N[...] P[...] S[...]
Obo Z[...]
S[...]
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
NORMAN J:
[1] On 31 July 2024 the
parties agreed in a further rule 37 minute filed that the only issue
for determination is the contingency
deductions to be applied on the
past and future loss of earnings claimed by the plaintiff. Ms
Westerdale appeared for the plaintiff
and Ms Futshane for the
defendant.
Background facts
[2] The claim is a
damages claim involving a minor child. On 19 December 2019 at
approximately 12h00 in G[...] Street, Motherwell,
Gqeberha, in the
province of the Eastern Cape, a truck collided with a minor boy
child, Z[...], who was a pedestrian. At the time
Z[...] was
seven
years old. Plaintiff is his biological mother who instituted
the action, on his behalf, and claimed general damages, past and
future
medical expenses, future loss of income and/or reduction of
earning capacity.
[3] Defendant conceded
liability and confirmed that no apportionment would be applied to the
plaintiff’s claim. The parties
settled general damages in the
sum of R600 000.00. They also settled future medical expenses,
however, an undertaking in terms
of
section 17
(4) (a) of the
Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
was inadvertently omitted from the
agreement, an issue that will form part of the order in this matter
as agreed by the parties.
Plaintiff’s
claim in relation to future loss of income and/or loss of earnings
capacity is R2 450 210.00.
An interim payment
towards loss of earning capacity in the amount of R350 000 was
also agreed.
[4] Defendant admitted
the medico-legal reports relied upon by the plaintiff and admitted
the correctness of their contents including
the opinions expressed
and factual information relied upon by each expert witness. Defendant
also agreed that the following medico-
legal reports be admitted into
evidence without any further proof thereof. Those are: The reports of
Dr R. Jaffe, an orthopaedic
surgeon
and
addendum thereto dated 20 September 2021 and 02 April 2021,
respectively, together with the RAF4 Form in relation to the
seriousness
of the injury sustained by Z[...] compiled by the same
expert; a report by
Dr K. Cronwright, a plastic
and reconstructive surgeon who had also assessed the plaintiff and
compiled the serious assessment injury
report as contained in the
RAF4 form dated 06 October 2021; a report by Ms L. Jackson, an
occupational therapist ; a report by
Ms M. Pretorius , an industrial
psychologist dated 25 May 2023; a report by Ms Karin Trollip an
educational psychologist dated
12 June 2024; actuarial reports by
Munro Forensic Actuaries dated 02 April 2024 and 22 July 2024,
respectively. The joint minutes
between the respective educational
psychologists dated 12 July 2024 and the industrial psychologists
dated 03 July 2024, also served
before this court.
[5] It was also agreed by
the defendant that the actuarial report compiled by Munro Forensic
Actuaries would be admitted and that
the actuaries would not be
required to attend the hearing. Defendant further admitted that the
certificates of value are correctly
calculated and further admitted
the actuarial correctness and soundness of such certificates.
Amendment
[6] At the commencement
of the hearing Ms Westerdale sought an amendment to the particulars
of claim by the deletion of paragraph
9.3 and the substitution
thereof with the following:
‘
9.3
Future loss of income/diminished earning capacity R2 450 210.00.
9.3.1
At the time of the collision the minor was a scholar in Grade 1.
9.3.2 At the time of the
collision the minor was healthy and would have worked until age 65
years.
9.3.3 But for the
collision 9.3.1 the minor would have obtained his Grade 12 by
December 2030 and commenced his tertiary studies
in January 2031.
9.3.2 would have earned R100 per day as a casual worker, 2-3 days a
week was completing his studies for the period
January 2031 to
December 2034. 9.3.3 would have completed his tertiary studies by
December 2034;
9.3.4 Would have
commenced employment in January 2035 earning on a Paterson B2/B3
level of R296 500.00 per year increasing
in a straight line to
Paterson B4 in January 2039 earning R368 000.00 per year
increasing in a straight line to Paterson B5
by January 2043 earning
R425 000.00 per year increasing in a straight line to Paterson
C1 by January 2049 earning R519 000.00
per year enjoying
earnings inflation until retirement.
9.4 Having regard to the
collision the minor waste 1 (one) year schooling whilst recuperating
from these injuries.
9.4.2 will earn similarly
as in his uninjured scenarios save for a year’s delay.
9.4.3 is limited from
certain employment on the open labour market due to his injuries and
sequalae.
9.4.4 has been rendered a
vulnerable employee on the open labour market.
9.4.5 will not be able to
perform casual work while studying.
9.4.6 is not suited to
work of a medium to heavy nature.
9.4.7 will need
accommodation with light work.’
[7] The defendant did not
oppose the proposed amendment and it was accordingly granted.
Legal submissions
[8] Plaintiff contended
that a contingency deduction of 25% to the uninjured earnings and 40
% to the injured earnings should be
applied. Contrary to that
contention, the defendant contended that a 30% pre-morbid and 30%
post-morbid contingency should be applied.
[9]
In support of the plaintiff’s contention, Ms Westerdale
referred the court to a decision of Bloem J of this Division in
Neslynne
Udean Cannon obo Declan Devane Cannon v Road Accident Fund
[1]
where the court applied a contingency deduction of 20% to the
plaintiff’s claim for loss income.
Ms
Westerdale submitted that a 40% contingency to post-morbid income is
adequate and 25 % pre-morbid for a minor where there is
no head
injury would be adequate.
[10]
Ms Futshane, on the other hand, submitted that the defendant applied
a sliding scale of ½ %
per year
until retirement age hence it is contending for 30 % pre and post -
morbidly. Plaintiff was
seven years at the time
of the accident and has about 53 years
before he attains 65
years for retirement. She referred the court to the actuarial report
and submitted that the progression pre
and post- morbid is the same.
She conceded that there is a year delay but the progression is the
same as if the plaintiff was not
injured. The court is dealing with
someone who sustained orthopaedic injuries. Z[...] would progress as
if the accident did not
occur, and he would reach the Paterson C1.
The court must take into account certain factors such as illness,
death, the fact that
not every graduate is assured employment and the
country’s current economic climate. There are many other
careers that the
plaintiff can venture into since he has a leg
injury. There is no justification for applying higher contingencies
to the injured
earnings.
[11]
She referred the court to the case of
Kilian
NO v Road Accident Fund
[2]
where Legodi J (as he then was) applied 35% contingency to the
injured
income.
She submitted further that the court must not simply rely on joint
minutes. The court must take into account other factors
such as
unemployment, illnesses, statistics in relation to graduates who are
entering the labour market, family background, the
plaintiff’s
siblings and where they are at in life. Even factors that were not
placed before court, she argued, must be taken
into account.
[12]
Ms Futshane further submitted that people with disabilities are
usually given preferential consideration within the labour
market. Ms
Futshane also relied on the
Quantum
Yearbook
[3]
for the
submission that normal contingencies to be applied are 25% for a
child and 20% for the youth. In this regard she referred
the court to
Goodall v
President Insurance
Co
Ltd
[4]
and
Southern
Insurance Association v Bailey
[5]
.
[13]
In reply, Ms Westerdale submitted that the sliding scale that is
proposed by the defendant is flawed because the defendant
applies it
from the time the child was injured and not at the time of
employment. The industrial psychologists dealt with, amongst
others,
early death, retrenchment and all the factors that are usually
regarded as normal. The defendant has not taken issue with
any of the
expert opinions. The evidence admitted by the defendant places this
case in a different position to other cases.
Discussion
[14]
It is trite that in determining a fair and reasonable compensation
for loss of income or earning capacity, a court has a wide
discretion. That discretion needs to be exercised judicially. In
determining future loss of income or earnings capacity one has
to
compare what the claimant would have earned but for the incident with
what he would likely to have earned after the incident.
The future
loss represents the difference between the pre-morbid and post-morbid
earnings after the application of the appropriate
contingencies.
[15]
When courts make awards for potential or future losses, it is general
practice to make use of contingency deductions to provide
for any
future events or circumstances which are possible but cannot be
predicted with certainty such as longevity, loss of employment,
early
death, promotion prospects etc.
[6]
[16]
Contingencies are risk factors which may affect an individual’s
earning capacity in future. They are applied to both
the pre and
post-morbid calculations. If a claimant is no longer an equal
competitor in the open labour market, is a vulnerable
employee or is
enjoying an element of sympathetic employment, the chances of job
loss or loss of income are significantly higher.
It is customary in
these circumstances to apply a higher post-morbid contingency
deduction to cater for this vulnerability.
[7]
[17]
The suggested application of the sliding scale before Z[...] enters
the labour market is not normal practice. The actuaries
based their
assumptions on Z[...]’s career and earnings as projected by
industrial psychologists. This is evident from their
report that they
assumed that the claimant would have entered the labour market in
January 2034. I am accordingly not persuaded
that the defendant’s
submission in this regard is reasonable and I accordingly reject it.
Allowances for contingencies is
a process of subjective impression or
estimation rather than an objective calculation that is positioned in
the sole discretion
of the court
[8]
.
In order to achieve fairness when one applies contingencies, one must
apply those contingencies to the particular proven facts
of the case.
That way the decision doesn’t rest purely on speculation
[9]
.
Some of the contingencies that the court would take into account are,
inter alia, the possibility of illness which would have
occurred in
any event; inflation or deflation of the value of money in future;
and other risks of life such as accidents or even
death which would
have become a reality sooner or later in any event
[10]
.
There are no fixed rules with regards to general contingencies
[11]
.
[18]
The facts of this case are distinguishable from those in the
Kilian
N.O
judgment. In that case the court was critical of the
plaintiff’s approach of relying on a stated case and joint
minutes and
his failure to place before court the medico- legal
reports. The court was critical of that approach as there was dearth
of evidence
before it. The court stated:
‘
[28]
This court was confined to the stated case and joint minutes of
experts as outlined in paragraph 15 of this judgment, thus
making it
difficult for this court to cover a wide range considerations, which
as we know vary from case to case. It was concerning
for this court
to hear a submission by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff stating
that reports should not be made available to
the court as there are
disagreements in the reports and that witnesses have been excused due
to the signing of stated case document.’
Those difficulties do not arise herein.
Admitted
expert evidence
[19]
It is common cause that as a result of the accident Z[...] sustained
the following injury: a crush injury of the right foot
and ankle with
severe lacerations of the lower leg, ankle and foot and laceration of
multiple tendons. This injury is described
by Dr R. Jaffe as a severe
crush injury to his foot. There were no fractures. He will at no
stage be fully mobile and in fact would
be very restricted in this
area. This will affect him in that he is a Grade behind in school and
once he has completed his schooling
he will be restricted in what
physical work he can apply when he decided on his future career. He
certainly will not be able to
manage work of a manual nature where he
has to be on his feet all day and he has to negotiate uneven surfaces
and generally be
fully mobile.
[20]
Ms Lise Jackson, an occupational therapist, who had assessed Z[...]
on 07 March 2023 indicated that Z[...] will require frequent
breaks
and postural changes to alleviate pain in his right ankle, should he
not receive successful treatment by the time he enters
the open
labour market. He will not be considered an equal competitor when he
eventually enters the open labour market in an economic
situation
which already provides limited work opportunities. He will enter an
open labour market a year later. Apart from the Covid19
pandemic it
appears his long recovery time had caused him to fall behind of his
age cohort at school.
[21]
Dr Nokhanyo Rungqu-Mshumpela, the defendant’s expert and an
industrial psychologist, after assessing Z[...] found that
there is
no reason to doubt that pre-morbidly Z[...] would have attained a
Grade 12 plus a Diploma/Bachelor’s Degree resulting
in NQF
Level 6/7 from a recognised tertiary institution. Furthermore, he
would have been able to compete in the open labour market
as a
semi-skilled and skilled worker until normal retirement age of 65
years should there be grounds to conclude that there was
indeed an
earning capacity without the event of the accident. She concluded
that had the accident not occurred it seems reasonable
to infer that
Z[...] would have completed NQF Level 6/7 equivalent at the age of 22
years after taking into account the assessment
results, information
obtained during the interview and the opinions of other experts
relevant to this matter. Based on Z[...]’s
injuries sustained
as a result of the motor vehicle accident it seems reasonable to
infer that Z[...] although he would complete
his schooling a year
later would be able to complete his matric and possibly pursue a
career of his choice within a sedentary category.
She concurred with
Ms Lesa Jackson, that Z[...] will not be considered an equal
competitor when he eventually enters the open labour
market.
[22]
In the joint minute between the plaintiff and defendant’s
Industrial Psychologists Dr Nokhanyo Rungqu-Mshumpela and Ms
Madeleine Pretorius agreed under the uninjured career prospects and
earnings that Z[...] would probably commence working on a
semi-skilled Paterson B2 and would progress to a skilled level at
least Paterson C1 during the course of his career. They also agreed
that he would have continued to benefit from average inflationary
increases until the normal retirement of 65 years old. When dealing
with injured career prospects in earnings they were
ad
idem
that Z[...] has been rendered a
vulnerable competitor in the open labour market. It is for that
reason that they recommended a
higher contingency based on, amongst
others, these factors: the scarcity of accommodating employers,
occupational narrowing, and
spells of unemployment. They agreed that
Z[...] might experience periods of unemployment in future due to his
restrictions and
a narrow range of opportunities available to him.
[23]
A joint minute between the educational psychologists Dr Geeta M Prag
and Ms Caren Trollip recorded that the plaintiff missed
a year of
schooling due to recovering from his injury and during the 2020 Covid
19 pandemic when the schools were closed. As a
result of that he is
now a year behind his age cohort. His mother reported that he was
upset about that fact. They found that it
was difficult to discern
what would have occurred in terms of his marks had he completed Grade
2 in 2021.
[24]
Dr R Jaffe regarded the crush injury on the right foot of Z[...] as a
most severe injury to cause significant skin and soft
tissue damage
as well as mobility restrictions. He did not suggest any further
treatment and there appeared to be no other orthopaedic
treatment for
this injury. With regard to the extensor tendons of the ankle and
foot there is no further treatment for this and
these injuries have
contributed to Z[...]’s functional impairment in that there is
weakness of extension of the foot and
the ankle for which there is no
further treatment. He concluded that Z[...] has sustained a severe
crush injury to his right foot
that has left him with functional
mobility’s restriction that will not improve at any stage in
the future. His mobility will
be restricted from a moderate to
moderately severe degree on a permanent basis. Z[...] is
self-conscious of the scars and keeps
them covered at all times. He
walks with a definite limp and is not able to crouch or kneel. He
walks with a heel inverted.
[25]
Dr Keith Cronwright, found that, as a young boy Z[...], with many
years of life ahead of him, has been left with a serious
scar of his
right lower limb which negatively impacts his functional abilities
and activities of daily living. As he grows older
the situation will
only deteriorate and he will benefit significantly from certain
procedures to improve function of the foot.
He will still be left
with serious scarring of the right lower limb which will be
noticeable and attract negative attention and
comments when wearing
certain types of clothing. He found that children can be cruel and
the unsightly scar is almost certain to
attract negative attention
from his peers. The location of the scarring may prevent Z[...] from
ever being able to work in a position
that requires the mandatory
wearing of safety boots.
[26]
Plaintiff relied on the assessments of the industrial psychologists
and their agreement as contained in their joint minutes
matters such
as career path liked to be followed by Z[...], his probable
remuneration, prospects of promotion, working life span,
retirement
and other factors that would have a bearing on his income over the
years. Mr Munro in his calculations found that the
capital value of
loss of earnings after contingencies would be an amount R2 450 210.
He took into account the fact that
Z[...] as a minor had not suffered
past loss of earnings due to the accident. Relying on the information
provided by,
inter alia,
the industrial psychologists, he
interpreted and made assumptions that if Z[...] passed each grade he
would have completed Grade
12 in December 2030. He allowed for 4
years of tertiary studies and Z[...] entering the labour market at
the age of 22. In interpreting
future uninjured earnings, he
described Z[...]’s career and earnings progression had the
accident not occurred, that, he
would have completed Grade 12 in
December 2030. In January 2031 he would have received R100 per day, 2
to 3 days per week during
tertiary studies. In January 2035 he would
reach the Paterson B2/B3 at R296 500 per year, on a straight
line to Paterson B4
at R364 000 per year in January 2039. In
January 2043, he would reach Paterson B5 at R425 000 per year on
a straight
line to January 2049 on Paterson C1 at R519 000 per
year. He allowed for earnings inflation until retirement at age 65.
[27]
In relation to future injured earnings Z[...] would complete Grade 12
in December of 2031, he would receive no earnings during
tertiary
studies. He would reach Paterson B2/B3 at R296 500 per year
straight line in January 2036 and in January 2040 he
would reach
PatersonB4 at R368 000 per year straight line to January 2034
where he would reach Paterson B5 at 425 000
per year straight
line to January
2050 Paterson C1
at R519 000 per year.
[28]
Looking at all the body of evidence which has been accepted by the
defendant, Ms Futshane’s submissions that progression
is the
same as if Z[...] has not been injured must be viewed in context, by
taking all the evidence in its totality and not piece
meal. There is
the one-year delay attributed to the period of recuperation of Z[...]
from the injuries. He is going to lose earnings
during tertiary
studies. Ms Futshane also submitted that a person with disability
like Z[...] would receive preferential treatment
within the labour
market. That may be so, but unfortunately this submission is not
supported by the various experts whose evidence
has been admitted by
the defendant. All the experts whose findings are summarised above,
had examined and assessed Z[...]. Most
importantly the industrial
psychologists are also privy to what occurs within the labour market.
As aforementioned they agreed,
inter alia, that “
Z[...]
will not be considered an equal competitor when he eventually enters
the open labour market in an economic situation which
provides
limited work opportunities.”
Had
preferential treatment been a factor that would have been favourable
to Z[...], they would have mentioned it. In this regard
the defendant
is bound by the admissions made.
[29]
The educational psychologists Dr Getta M Prag and Ms Karim Trollip
found that Z[...] excels in drawing cartoons and shows artistic
talent. He has an interest in becoming an artist. His mother was in
the military police and had a Diploma NQF Level 6. She progressed
up
the ranks to become an Officer and later a Commander. She is
currently a business owner. Z[...] loves to read about animals.
He is
a year behind his peers and it was reported to the professionals by
his mother that he was very upset about that position.
He is
performing well at school and passed well in Grades 3 to 5 (first
term) when the assessment was done. The educational psychologists
assumed that Z[...] would probably be able to complete Grade 12 with
endorsement to tertiary higher certificate diploma or degree
studies.
As aforementioned, the industrial psychologists agreed that Z[...]
might experience periods of unemployment in future
due to his
restrictions and narrow range of job opportunities available to him.
[30]
Z[...] has poor concentration and as a result his performance is not
as it was before the incident. He has intermittent pain
in the toes.
He has unsightly scars as described by the orthopaedic surgeon. The
factors alluded to by the defendant were taken
into account by Munro
Actuaries when they compiled their calculations and assumptions. In
the circumstances of this case, given
the fact that the defendant,
not only admitted the reports that they should form part of the
evidence but accepted the facts, findings
together with all the
opinions expressed by the various professionals as indicated earlier
in this judgment. There is accordingly
no basis to find that a 30%
contingency should be applied to earnings pre and post –
morbidly.
[31]
Based on the opinions of the industrial pychologists this court will
be justified in finding that Z[...] must be adequately
compensated
because, as a result of the injury, he will be disadvantaged on the
labour market such that, were he to lose a job,
it would take him
longer to secure alternative employment and / or he would struggle to
secure similarly paid employment.
[32]
Nicholas JA in
Southern
Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
[12]
stated:
‘
Any
enquiry into damages for loss of earnings 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 guess work,
a blind plunge into the
unknown. The other is try to make an assessment, by way of
mathematical calculations, on the basis of the
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. It is manifest that either
approach involves guess work to a greater
or lesser extent. But the
Court cannot for this reason adopt a non possumus attitude and make
no award.’
[33]
I am accordingly persuaded that the contingency deductions of 25%
pre- morbid and 40% post- morbid proposed by the plaintiff
are
reasonable and consistent with the proven facts and the risk factors
relevant to this case. The defendant did not object to
the proposed
draft order sought by the plaintiff. In the draft order plaintiff
took into account the contingency deductions proposed
by him. That
resulted in the amount of R915 925.00 in addition to the interim
payment of R350 000.00 referred to, above,
being in full and
final settlement in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for loss
of income. It follows that the plaintiff
has been successful in its
argument for justification of higher contingencies on the injured
income. Defendant must accordingly
bear the costs occasioned by the
hearing of 31 July 2024.
Order
[34]
I accordingly make the following Order:
1.
Defendant
shall pay an amount of R915 925.00 (in addition to the interim
payment of R350 00.00 made in terms of Court Order
dated 24 April
2024) in full and final settlement in respect of the Plaintiff’s
claim for loss of income.
Payment
of the aforesaid amount shall be made directly to Plaintiff’s
attorney of record, De Vries Shields Chiat Inc’s
trust
account, details of which are as follows:
Name
:
De Vries Shields Chiat Inc.
Bank
:
First National Bank
Branch
:
Portside
Branch
code
:
21065
Account
:
6[...]
3.
Defendant
shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount in paragraph 1 above at
the prevailing prescribed interest rate calculated
from a date 14
days after granting of this Order, in accordance with
Section
17(3)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
as amended.
4.
The amounts
awarded to the Plaintiff are to be retained in Plaintiff’s
Attorney’s trust account, save for payment of
disbursements,
pending the outcome of an application to be made for the appointment
of a
curator
bonis
to the minor.
5.
Defendant
shall pay Plaintiff’s taxed costs of suit from 25 April 2024 up
to and including date of this order, including the
costs of counsel
to be taxed on scale B (as stipulated in
Rule 69(7))
, such costs are
to include but not limited to:
5.1
The costs of
the supplementary reports (if any) of the experts for whom the
Plaintiff has given notice in terms of
Rule 36(9)(a)
and (b);
1.2
5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; line-height: 150%">
5.2
The qualifying
fees, expenses and reservation costs (if any) of the experts for whom
the Plaintiff has given notice in terms of
Rule 36(9)(a)
and (b);
5.3
The costs of
the joint minutes of:
5.3.1
K. Trollip;
and
5.3.2
M. Pretorius.
5.4
The costs of
consultations between Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s
Attorney, Plaintiff and witnesses in preparation
for trial;
5.5
The costs of
the trial for 31 July 2024;
5.6
The costs of
the application to be brought for the appointment of a
curator
bonis
to the minor, on a party and party scale.
6.
Defendant
shall pay interest on Plaintiff’s taxed costs at the prevailing
prescribed interest rate per annum calculated from
a date 14 days
after allocator to date of payment.
7.
Defendant
shall furnish Plaintiff with a
section 17(4)(a)
Undertaking for 100%
of the costs of future expenses, future accommodation in a hospital,
or treatment of or rendering of a service
to him or supplying of
goods to him, and as further detailed in the reports filed by
Plaintiff to date, arising out of the injuries
sustained in the
collision on 19 December 2019, after such costs have been incurred
and upon proof thereof, such costs to include
the costs of a
curator
bonis
,
if any, as well as the costs of security, if required.
T.V
NORMAN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
For
the PLAINTIFF
: ADV
WESTERDALE
Instructed
by
:
DSC ATTORNEYS
10
TH
Floor, Touchstone House
7
Bree Street
CAPE
TOWN
Tel:
0861 465 879
Email:
dbotha@dsclaw.co.za
Ref:
Daniel Botha/SOG3/0001
c/o
: Dold & Stone Attorneys
10
African Street
GRAHAMSTOWN
Ref:
Y. Wolmarans
For
The DEFENDANT
: MS
FUTSHANE
Instructed
by
:
STATE ATTORNEY
Old
Spoornet Building
17
Fleet Street
EAST
LONDON
Email:
vuyolwethuf@raf.co.za
Ref:
Soginga, NPP/Zo4/VJ/np
5166830
– 503/1288030908/1011/0
Matter
heard on
: 31
July 2024
Judgment
delivered
: 13
August 2024
[1]
Neslynne
Udean Cannon obo Declan Devane Cannon v Road Accident Fund
(2213/2020) [2023] ZAECGHC 101 (24 October 2023).
[2]
Kilian
N.O v Road Accident Fund
Case No. 34116/2016 [2016] ZAGPPHC 844 (15 September 2016).
[3]
Quantum Yearbook
Koch
2024.
[4]
Goodall v
President Insurance Co Ltd
1978 (1) SA 389
(W) at 392 H – 393 A.
[5]
Southern
Insurance Association v Bailey
NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A).
[6]
See
article by Honey Attorneys application of contingency deductions in
loss of earning claims dated 27 November 2019.
[7]
See
Road Accident Fund – Conflict Dynamics: Training & Dispute
Resolutions Services: An Overview prepared by Attorney
and Mediator
Ms Leigh de Souza-Spagnoletti.
[8]
AA
Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Maqula
1978 1 SA 805 (A).
[9]
A.A.
Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v. Van Jaarsveld
1974
(4) SA 729 (A).
[10]
Corbett, in the Quantum of Damages Vol 1 page 51
[11]
Robert Koch, 2017 Edition, Quantum Yearbook page 126.
[12]
Southern
Insurance Association v Bailey NO
1984 (1) SA
98 (A) at 113 F– 114 A.