2
Introduction
[1] This is an action for the determination of general damages pursuant to a motor
vehicle collision which occurred on 1 August 2021. The merits of the claim, past and future
loss of earnings, and future medical expenses were settled by a default judgment orde r
granted on 23 August 2024. The only issue remaining for determination is the quantum of
general damages.
[2] The defendant, the Road Accident Fund, has been barred from pleading. The matter
proceeds by way of default judgment on the papers, in terms of Rule 38(2), based on the
plaintiff's affidavits and the confirmatory affidavits of the expert witnesses.
Background
[3] The plaintiff, a 36-year-old male at the time of the accident, was a passenger in the
insured vehicle. As a result of the collision, he sustained severe and multiple injuries, the
most significant being a spinal cord injury with complete cord transection at T10, resulting
in paraplegia from T11 downwards.
[4] The injuries, as comprehensively detailed in the expert reports and hospital records,
include:
4.1. A concussive head injury;
3
4.2. A T10 fracture dislocation with complete spinal cord transection, causing
permanent paraplegia;
4.3. A wedge compression fracture of L2 with retropulsion of fragments into the
cord;
4.4. A right elbow y-type supracondylar fracture;
4.5. Acetabular and right pelvic fractures;
4.6. Hemoperitoneum and multiple internal organ contusions (spleen, mesentery,
jejunum);
4.7. Acute kidney injury; and
4.8. Multiple lacerations and abrasions.
[5] It appears that t he sequelae of these injuries are profound and permanent. The
plaintiff is wheelchair-bound, has no sensation or motor function in his lower limbs, and
suffers from neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction requiring an indwelling catheter
and a bowel program. He is at constant risk of life-threatening complications such as deep
vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pressure sores, and urinary tract infections.
[6] Furthermore, the plaintiff suffers from a major depressive disorder and secondary
post-traumatic stress disorder, characterised by insomnia, withdrawal, hopelessness,
anxiety, and cognitive deficits. He also bears extensive, permanent scarring.
4
Assessment of general damages
[7] The plaintiff claims an amount of R1 800 000.00 for general damages. Counsel for
the plaintiff referred the court to several comparative cases, notably Mertz1 (R3 500 000.00
adjusted to R4 304 583.00 in 2026 terms for tetraplegia), MC v Road Accident Fund
(26299/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 242 (R1 200 000.00 adjusted to R1 838 722.00 for severe
quadriplegia with complications), and Morake v R oad Accident Fund (52700/15) [2017]
ZAGPPHC 761 (R2 500 000.00 adjusted to R4 291 830.00 for quadriplegia).
[8] While these cases provide a useful framework, each assessment must be tailored to
the specific circumstances of the plaintiff before the court. The injuries in Mertz and
Morake involved quadriplegia, which typically commands a higher award due to the
involvement of all four limbs. The plaintiff in this matter suffers from paraplegia.
[9] The case of MC v R oad Accident Fund is m ore analogous, involving severe and
permanent neurological sequelae with attendant complications. However, the court notes
that the plaintiff in MC v Road Accident Fund was also diagnosed with quadriplegia , and
which is not the position in the present case . The plaintiff here, while suffering
catastrophically from paraplegia and a severe constellation of associated injuries and
psychological sequelae, retains the use of his upper limbs, albeit with weakened right arm
function.
1 Mertz v Road Accident Fund (A96/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC.
5
[10] I am also mindful of the fact that the determination in awarding an appropriate
amount that should be fair to both parties is in the courts ’ discretion. The Supreme Court
of Appeal in De Jongh 2 correctly opined that while the plaintiff should be properly
compensated, at the same time the plaintiff should not be overly compensated with an
exceedingly high award which would burden the defendant.
[11] In Bay Passenger Transport Ltd 3 the Court summarised the proper approach to be
followed as follows:
“Comparable cases, when available, should rather be used to afford some guidance in a
general way, towards assisting the Court in arriving at an award which is not substantially
out of general accord with previous and broadly similar cases, regard being ha d to all the
factors which are considered to be relevant in the assessment of general damages. All the
same time it may be permissible, in an appropriate case, to test any assessment arrived at
upon this basis by reference to the general pattern of previou s awards in cases where the
injuries and the sequelae may have been either more serious or less than those in the case
under consideration.”
[12] Having considered the nature, extent, and permanence of the injuries, the severe and
lifelong impact on the plaintiff's amenities of life, his dignity, his mental health, and his
profound loss of independence, I am of the view that an award of R1,800,000.0 0, as
suggested by the plaintiff, is excessive in light of the cited jurisprudence which
distinguishes between quadriplegia and paraplegia.
2 De Jongh v Du Pisanie N.O. [2004] All SA 565 (SCA).
3 Bay Passenger Transport Ltd v Franzen 1975 (1) SA 269 (A) at p274.
6
[13] In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in De Jongh, I am of the
view that a n award must be fair and reasonable, compensating the plaintiff adequately
without being overly generous.
[14] Taking into account the totality of the evidence, including the permanent paraplegia
but not permanent quadriplegia , the significant orthopaedic and internal injuries, the
permanent scarring, the severe psychological sequelae, and the constant risk of medical
complications, I find that a fair and appropriate award for general damages in this matter
is R1 600 000.00 (One Million Six Hundred Thousand Rand).
Order
[15] In the result, I make the following order:
1. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of R 1 600 000.00 (One
Million Six Hundred Thousand Rand) in respect of general damages.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay interest on the said amount at the prescribed legal
rate of 11.75% per annum, calculated from the date of service of the summons to
the date of final payment.
3. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit in respect of the
determination of general damages.
SS TEBEILE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
7
For the Plaintiff: Adv. M Jorge
Instructed by: Raphael & David Smith Inc
For the Defendant: No appearance
Date of Hearing: 03 February 2026
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2026