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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 186
|
|
Lawrence v Road Accident Fund (022477/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 186 (28 January 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 022477/2024
DATE
:
28-01-2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In
the matter between
THAPELO
LAWRENCE
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN,
AJ
:
This claim arose as result of an
accident which occurred on or about the 4
th
of April 2023
at or near the intersection of Catherine Street and West Street in
Sandton.
The plaintiff alleges that he was a
passenger in a vehicle which was involved in an accident after the
driver had lost control thereof.
No evidence was presented to gainsay
this version which is not inherently improbable. The plaintiff is
therefore successful on
the aspect of negligence and the defendant is
liable for 100 percent of such damages as the plaintiff may be able
to substantiate.
The defendant has made no election in
respect of general damages and as such, the claim for general damages
is to be separated out
and postponed
sine die.
The claim for future hospital, medical
and ancillary expenses shall be dealt with by way of an un -
apportioned undertaking in terms
of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road
Accident Fund Act.
When it comes to the aspect of loss of
income, the factual foundation of the plaintiff’s claim is
rather limited. There is
some evidence that he was employed, albeit
informally and on a part time basis, as a labourer assistant in the
installation of
solar panels. The suggestion is that each
installation would take three to seven days, but there is no
indication as to how often
these installations took place or how many
were done during a month or a year.
An assumption that he worked 12 days
per month at R300 per day, translates to an annual income of R43 200
and which is approximately
20% less than the theoretical figure
postulated by the plaintiff’s industrial psychologist.
The uncertainty surrounding the
employment is a factor which must be considered in coming to a fair
and reasonable result in this
matter. In addition to the uncertainty
surrounding employment, the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition,
epilepsy, which, based
on the medical evidence, was exacerbated by
the head injury sustained in the accident and which might have
influenced his ability
to continue working on roof spaces or other
raised areas for the installation of solar panels.
The plaintiff’s history further
reveals periods of unemployment with no proof of any other
pre-accident income. The question
of the retirement age was discussed
in Court and no convincing reason could be given as to why retirement
in this instance should
be 65 years.
What is confirmed by the medico-legal
reports filed of record, is that the plaintiff is factually
unemployable after the accident.
Based on the figures contained in
the actuarial report it seems that the amount in respect of accrued
loss of income is R65 929.
If a standard 5% deduction is made from
this amount, then the plaintiff is successful with a claim for past
loss of income in the
sum of R62 632.
Only the plaintiff’s claim for
future loss of earnings remains. The calculation on CaseLines at
08-185 provides for the plaintiff
to have worked until 2052 - the
year in which the plaintiff turns 65. If the figure of R935 948 is
used as the point of departure
and a 40 percent contingency deduction
is applied to make provision for all the various factors mentioned
earlier, then the net
amount in respect of future loss of income is
R561 568.80.
My order is thus as follows:
1.
The plaintiff’s application in terms
of rule 38(2) is granted.
2.
The application in terms of rule 33(4) for
the separation and postponement of general damages
sine
die
is granted.
3.
The defendant shall be liable for 100% of
such damages as the plaintiff may be able to substantiate.
4.
The plaintiff’s claim for future
hospital, medical and ancillary expenses is to be dealt with by the
tendering of an unlimited
Undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a).
5.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the
sum of R62 632 in respect of past loss of income.
6.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff an
amount of R561 568.80 in respect of future loss of income.
7.
To the extent that the plaintiff has been
substantially successful, there is no reason why costs should not
follow the result and
the plaintiff is entitled to his
party-and-party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel’s fees to be
on Scale B.
That is my order.
WEIDEMAN, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….