Brief Summary

Damages — Road Accident Fund — Apportionment of damages — Plaintiff claiming damages for loss of earnings and medical expenses due to motorcycle accident — Court finding 90% liability on defendant — Plaintiff awarded net damages of R4 353 273.00 for past medical expenses and future loss of earnings after apportionment — Defendant ordered to pay costs and provide undertaking for future medical expenses.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment

1. Introduction

The proceedings were a claim for delictual damages instituted in the High Court of South Africa, Free State Division, Bloemfontein, arising from a motorcycle collision. The plaintiff, Davin Groenewald, sued the defendant, the Road Accident Fund, for compensation under the statutory scheme governing third-party motor vehicle accident claims.

The matter proceeded on the basis that the merits (liability) had already been resolved by agreement between the parties on an apportionment of 90%/10% in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining dispute concerned quantum, primarily the plaintiff’s alleged future loss of earnings/earning capacity, and to a lesser extent past hospital and medical expenses.

Procedurally, the plaintiff successfully applied for an order in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2), permitting the evidence of witnesses and experts to be presented by affidavit. In addition to the affidavits and expert reports, the plaintiff also led oral evidence from a sports administrator (Mr JP Bester), an actuary (Mr Nilen Kambarran), and the plaintiff himself, directed mainly at establishing the plaintiff’s asserted professional rugby trajectory and the impact of his injuries on that career path.

The general subject-matter of the dispute was the assessment of loss of earning capacity, including whether the plaintiff had proven a sufficiently probable scenario that he would have played professional rugby (in addition to engineering studies) but for the accident, or whether the court should confine the award to an engineering-only earnings trajectory.

2. Material Facts

It was common cause, and accepted by the court as the basis for the remaining enquiry, that the plaintiff suffered injuries in a motorcycle collision on 25 October 2020, and that the merits had been settled on a 90%/10% apportionment in the plaintiff’s favour. It was also not in dispute that the plaintiff claimed damages under, inter alia, the heads of past hospital and medical expenses and future loss of earnings/earning capacity.

On the past medical expenses, the court, after considering the documentation and submissions, was satisfied that the plaintiff proved past hospital and medical expenses in the net amount of R126 215.00 (after apportionment), derived from an amount of R140 238.89 less R14 023.89.

The central factual contest concerned the plaintiff’s claimed pre-accident and post-accident career trajectory for purposes of future income. The plaintiff relied on the existence of a rugby sports bursary/contract linked to studies at the Central University of Technology (CUT) for 2020/2021, and on evidence that he was regarded as a talented rugby player with prospects of progressing within the university system, including the Varsity Cup structure.

Mr Bester confirmed the existence of a rugby contract between the plaintiff and CUT, and expressed the view that the plaintiff had been offered a bursary due to his talent and that the accident ended those prospects. At the same time, he testified that 2021 was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, that limited rugby was played, and that the plaintiff played for the Young Guns team. The plaintiff left CUT after the first semester, despite CUT allegedly being willing to continue engaging him.

The plaintiff testified that he experienced severe hand pain, was unable to pass a rugby ball during matches, and decided to stop playing rugby. He confirmed that he completed only the first semester at CUT in 2021, resumed engineering studies at North-West University (NWU) in 2022, and did not play rugby again.

The court identified discrepancies and uncertainties in the evidence relevant to whether the plaintiff’s professional rugby scenario was sufficiently established. These included differences between references in expert reports and oral testimony about the number of rugby matches played in 2021, and uncertainty about the timing and circumstances of the plaintiff’s departure from CUT. The court also noted problems with the rugby contract documentation, including how it was signed and whether it was properly executed by the club.

The court further treated as material the content of the bursary/contract terms, including that it was subject to a medical test in January 2021 and subject to the plaintiff remaining registered for both semesters, as well as termination provisions tied to academic performance and other grounds. Against that contractual background, the court considered it important, but insufficiently explained on the evidence, whether the plaintiff left CUT due to injury, workload, fitness/form, or other reasons, and whether the university terminated the arrangement or the plaintiff left without consequences.

3. Legal Issues

The central legal question was whether the plaintiff had proved, on the evidence presented, the appropriate basis for quantifying future loss of earnings/earning capacity, specifically whether the court should adopt the plaintiff’s asserted “rugby scenario” (engineering studies combined with a later professional rugby career) or the more conservative “engineering scenario” (engineering studies without professional rugby).

This dispute primarily concerned the application of law to fact within the damages assessment framework. The governing legal task required the court to evaluate whether the plaintiff’s alleged career path was sufficiently probable to ground a damages award, and to determine what earnings projections, contingencies, and statutory limitations (including the actuarial application of the RAF cap) should be applied on the accepted scenario.

A subsidiary legal issue concerned whether the plaintiff had proven the quantum of past medical expenses, which was resolved as a matter of proof on the papers and accepted calculations.

4. Court’s Reasoning

The court approached the damages enquiry on the basis that, although expert reports and actuarial calculations assist in quantification, the plaintiff still bore the burden to place before the court a proper factual foundation for the scenario on which the actuarial projections rested. The court therefore examined whether the factual basis for the rugby scenario had been established with sufficient clarity and probability.

In respect of the claim for past hospital and medical expenses, the court stated that, having perused the documents and listened to oral submissions, it was satisfied that the plaintiff had proved that head of damages in the net amount claimed.

The major reasoning concerned future earnings. The actuary, Mr Kambarran, provided calculations on two scenarios proposed by the industrial psychologist, Mr Rosen. The first scenario assumed that the plaintiff would begin engineering studies in 2021 and play professional rugby between ages 25 and 35. The second scenario assumed engineering studies in 2021 without professional rugby. The plaintiff’s case sought an award based on the rugby scenario, supported by an asserted high probability (70–80%) attributed by the industrial psychologist to that outcome, and contingency deductions applied differently to pre-morbid and post-morbid earnings.

The court, however, was not persuaded that the rugby scenario had been proven. The judgment reflected that the court considered the plaintiff’s own evidence about leaving CUT and perceived inability to “achieve his potential” there, and contrasted that with what was stated in expert reports about deregistration, workload, and surgeries. The court also considered Mr Bester’s evidence about COVID-related disruption, limited matches, and CUT’s willingness to take a chance on the plaintiff’s recovery, as factors that made the precise cause and consequences of the plaintiff’s departure from CUT especially important.

A significant component of the court’s reasoning was the identification of gaps and internal inconsistencies in the evidentiary material. The court highlighted tensions between, on the one hand, accounts suggesting that the plaintiff played several matches in 2021 and later underwent surgery in September 2021, and, on the other hand, evidence indicating that he attended only the first semester at CUT and left around June 2021. The court questioned why an expert report referred to events suggesting continued presence at CUT later in 2021 if the plaintiff had left earlier, and raised uncertainty about references to a bursary being affected, without clarity as to which bursary was meant.

The court also scrutinised the CUT contract itself and found aspects of it “strange,” including that it appeared not to be signed on behalf of the club and contained a date that omitted the month. The court treated the contractual terms—particularly the medical-test suspensive condition, academic and performance-related termination provisions, and payment structure—as reinforcing the need for clear evidence showing why the plaintiff’s relationship with CUT ended when it did, and whether it was attributable to the accident-related injuries in the manner advanced.

Ultimately, the court concluded that it could not, on the evidence, determine with sufficient confidence whether the plaintiff left CUT due to injury, inability to cope, lack of fitness, dissatisfaction about being fielded given COVID disruptions, or whether CUT terminated the arrangement. The court described a “dearth of evidence” on this point and held that it could not accept that the plaintiff had made out a proper case for compensation premised on the rugby scenario.

Having rejected the rugby scenario as insufficiently proven, the court accepted the actuarial calculations premised on the engineering scenario and was satisfied that the plaintiff had made out a proper case for the quantum calculated on that basis. The court therefore awarded future loss of earnings/earning capacity corresponding to the engineering-only projection, together with the proven past medical expenses, both subject to the agreed 90/10 apportionment and the actuarial application of contingencies and capping as reflected in the figures accepted.

5. Outcome and Relief

The court ordered the Road Accident Fund to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the net capital sum of R4 353 273.00 within 180 days, comprising R126 215.00 for past hospital and medical expenses and R4 227 058.00 for future loss of earnings/earning capacity (calculated after contingencies, apportionment and capping). The court declined to award damages based on the higher rugby scenario advanced by the plaintiff.

Interest was ordered in the event of late payment of the capital amount, calculated at the prevailing rate from the 15th calendar day after the date of the order to date of payment, in line with prevailing legislation.

The defendant was further ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for payment of 90% of the costs of future hospital/nursing accommodation, treatment, services, or goods resulting from the accident, payable after such costs are incurred and proved.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party-and-party costs on the High Court scale in respect of liability and quantum up to and including 5 September 2025, including specified categories of costs (subject to taxation where not agreed). The order also regulated taxation steps, time periods for payment of taxed costs, and interest on costs if not paid timeously.

Cases Cited

No cases were cited in the judgment.

Legislation Cited

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, section 17(4)(a).

Rules of Court Cited

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 38(2).

Held

The court held that the plaintiff proved his claim for past hospital and medical expenses in the net amount of R126 215.00.

The court further held that the plaintiff did not establish a proper factual basis for quantification of future loss of earnings on the asserted professional rugby scenario, due to material uncertainties and inadequately explained evidence concerning the plaintiff’s departure from CUT, the operation and termination of the rugby bursary/contract arrangement, and inconsistencies between witness testimony and expert report narratives.

The court accepted the actuarial calculations based on the engineering scenario and awarded future loss of earnings/earning capacity in the net amount of R4 227 058.00, resulting in a total net capital award of R4 353 273.00, together with a section 17(4)(a) undertaking and an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A plaintiff claiming damages for loss of earnings or earning capacity must place before the court sufficient facts to establish the probable career path on which the quantification is based. Expert and actuarial calculations are dependent on the factual assumptions provided; where a proposed scenario is not adequately supported by the evidence, the court is entitled to reject that scenario.

In assessing damages for future loss, the court may evaluate the coherence and reliability of the evidence as a whole, including consistency between oral testimony, expert reports, and underlying documents relied upon to establish pre-morbid prospects. Where material gaps exist on causation-related factual questions relevant to career trajectory, the court may prefer a more securely established earnings model.

Where merits are settled on an agreed apportionment, the court applies that apportionment to the proven quantum. The court may also order an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for future medical-related costs, and may regulate payment periods, interest consequences for late payment, and the recovery of party-and-party costs, including expert-related costs, subject to taxation where applicable.

Groenewald v Road Accident Fund (6210/2020) [2026] ZAFSHC 18 (22 January 2026)