Bloss v Road Accident Fund (77104/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 78 (4 March 2020)

Bloss v Road Accident Fund (77104/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 78 (4 March 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries and their sequelae, including chronic pain, permanent scarring, and reduced physical capacity, were established and not disputed. Expert evidence supported a higher contingency deduction post-morbid due to the plaintiff's compromised employability and likelihood of early retirement. The court held that a 30% contingency deduction was fair and reasonable. The defendant's admissions regarding the RAF4 serious injury assessment reports were binding, and the plaintiff was entitled to general damages. Considering the nature of the injuries, the sequelae, and comparable awards, the court determined that R320,000.00 was a fair amount for general...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Bloss K; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Case Number
77104/16
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Quantum Determination After Liability Conceded
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for general damages and future loss of earnings or earning capacity is upheld. Defendant ordered to pay total sum, provide statutory undertaking, and pay costs.
Judges
MMP Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, General Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Serious Injury Assessment
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act General Damages Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Serious Injury Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloss K

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Quantum Determination After Liability Conceded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's future loss of earnings or earning capacity post-morbid.
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to general damages for pain, suffering, disability, and loss of amenities of life, and if so, what is the fair quantum.
  3. 3 Are the admissions made by the defendant regarding the RAF4 serious injury assessment reports binding and sufficient to establish entitlement to general damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries and their sequelae, including chronic pain, permanent scarring, and reduced physical capacity, were established and not disputed. Expert evidence supported a higher contingency deduction post-morbid due to the plaintiff's compromised employability and likelihood of early retirement. The court held that a 30% contingency deduction was fair and reasonable. The defendant's admissions regarding the RAF4 serious injury assessment reports were binding, and the plaintiff was entitled to general damages. Considering the nature of the injuries, the sequelae, and comparable awards, the court determined that R320,000.00 was a fair amount for general...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for general damages and future loss of earnings or earning capacity is upheld. Defendant ordered to pay total sum, provide statutory undertaking, and pay costs.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the total sum of R1,480,149.00 to the plaintiff's attorneys, Adams & Adams, in settlement of the plaintiff's action, calculated as R1,160,149.00 for future loss of earnings or earning capacity and R320,000.00 for general damages, together with interest at the legal rate from fourteen days...
  • The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for future medical and related expenses arising from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision on 16 May 2015.