Aeschliman v Road Accident Fund (1378/07) [2009] ZAECPEHC 7 (7 April 2009)

Aeschliman v Road Accident Fund (1378/07) [2009] ZAECPEHC 7 (7 April 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff was not being conveyed as a passenger in or on her vehicle at the time of the collision, but was the driver, as she retained control over steering, brakes, and gears. Therefore, the limitation under s 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act did not apply. The court further held that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, as her explanation for not applying the brakes was reasonable and unchallenged. The quantum of damages was determined based on expert and actuarial evidence, with appropriate contingency deductions, resulting in an award for past medical expenses, general damages, and...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Tamara Lynn Aeschliman; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 April 2009
Case Number
1378/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for full proven damages.
Judges
Kroon
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Quantum of Damages Loss of Earning Capacity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamara Lynn Aeschliman

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was being conveyed as a passenger in or on the vehicle at the time of the collision, limiting her claim under s 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in failing to apply her brakes during the towing incident.
  3. 3 Determination of the quantum of damages for past medical expenses, general damages, and loss of earning capacity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not being conveyed as a passenger in or on her vehicle at the time of the collision, but was the driver, as she retained control over steering, brakes, and gears. Therefore, the limitation under s 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act did not apply. The court further held that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, as her explanation for not applying the brakes was reasonable and unchallenged. The quantum of damages was determined based on expert and actuarial evidence, with appropriate contingency deductions, resulting in an award for past medical expenses, general damages, and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for full proven damages.

Orders

  • Payment of R2,900,610.72 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the said sum at the legal rate from 14 days after the judgment date until payment.