Bruwer v Road Accident Fund (4951/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 699 (7 September 2015)

Bruwer v Road Accident Fund (4951/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 699 (7 September 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff's uncontested evidence, supported by expert testimony, established a strong probability that he would have worked beyond the age of 65. The plaintiff's international career trajectory, absence of retirement clauses in his contracts, and continued demand for his expertise justified the use of age 70 as the retirement age for actuarial calculations. The defendant failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the court accepted the actuarial calculation based on retirement at age 70 and awarded damages accordingly.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 699
Parties
Plaintiff: Herman Bruwer; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2015
Case Number
4951/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for delictual damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earnings, Retirement Age, General Damages, Future Medical Expenses
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earnings Retirement Age General Damages Future Medical Expenses

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herman Bruwer

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate retirement age to be used in calculating the plaintiff's future loss of earnings.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages and future medical expenses as a result of the motor vehicle collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's uncontested evidence, supported by expert testimony, established a strong probability that he would have worked beyond the age of 65. The plaintiff's international career trajectory, absence of retirement clauses in his contracts, and continued demand for his expertise justified the use of age 70 as the retirement age for actuarial calculations. The defendant failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the court accepted the actuarial calculation based on retirement at age 70 and awarded damages accordingly.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for delictual damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the sum of R3,095,600.00 in delictual damages to the plaintiff.
  • 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.