B.M v Road Accident Fund (3677/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 168 (16 April 2020)

B.M v Road Accident Fund (3677/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 168 (16 April 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding past medical expenses and loss of earnings was uncontested and supported by documentation and expert joint minutes. The commission paid to a substitute for vehicle sourcing was accepted as a legitimate basis for future loss of earning capacity, as the plaintiff could no longer perform this function due to his injuries. The court determined that the average monthly commission was R43,603, and that a 35% contingency deduction was appropriate given the business growth and ongoing impact of the plaintiff's injuries. The statutory RAF cap was to be applied by actuarial calculation. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's proven...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 168
Parties
Plaintiff: B M; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Case Number
3677/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages is upheld; quantum determined for past medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings, subject to contingency deductions and statutory cap; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
P.J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Quantum of Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Quantum of Damages Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Expert Evidence

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

B M

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum for the plaintiff's past hospital and medical expenses?
  2. 2 What is the correct calculation for the plaintiff's past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity?
  3. 3 Should contingency deductions and statutory caps be applied to the damages claimed?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding past medical expenses and loss of earnings was uncontested and supported by documentation and expert joint minutes. The commission paid to a substitute for vehicle sourcing was accepted as a legitimate basis for future loss of earning capacity, as the plaintiff could no longer perform this function due to his injuries. The court determined that the average monthly commission was R43,603, and that a 35% contingency deduction was appropriate given the business growth and ongoing impact of the plaintiff's injuries. The statutory RAF cap was to be applied by actuarial calculation. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's proven...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages is upheld; quantum determined for past medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings, subject to contingency deductions and statutory cap; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant must pay the plaintiff R1,013,205 for past hospital and medical expenses.
  • The plaintiff's past loss of earnings is determined at R1,513,762, subject to a 5% contingency deduction and RAF cap, to be calculated actuarially.