De Jongh v Du Pisanie (220/2003) [2004] ZASCA 43; [2004] 2 All SA 565 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 457 (SCA) (25 May 2004)

De Jongh v Du Pisanie (220/2003) [2004] ZASCA 43; [2004] 2 All SA 565 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 457 (SCA) (25 May 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in awarding damages based on an idealised model of care that was not reasonably attainable or necessary. The evidence showed that Rabe, despite severe brain injury and epilepsy, could function with basic reminders and did not require full-time qualified nursing staff. The court accepted the appellant's model of care, involving a trained housekeeper/carer at a higher salary, as sufficient and more realistic. The court found that no contingency deduction should be made from the capitalised cost of future care under the appellant's model, but upheld the 10% contingency deduction for other future medical expenses. The objection to...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: Christiaan de Jongh; Respondent: Pieter Johannes du Pisanie NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Case Number
220/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum of Damages After Trial on Merits
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The trial court's order is set aside and replaced with a recalculated award.
Judges
Marais, Brand, Jones
Legal Topics
Quantification of Damages, Personal Injury, Future Medical Expenses, Loss of Earnings, General Damages, Contingency Deduction
Delict Civil Procedure Quantification of Damages Personal Injury Future Medical Expenses Loss of Earnings General Damages Contingency Deduction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan de Jongh

Appellant

Pieter Johannes du Pisanie NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum of Damages After Trial on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's severe brain and bodily injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident.
  2. 2 What type and extent of future care is reasonably required for the plaintiff.
  3. 3 What contingency deduction should be applied to future medical expenses and loss of earnings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in awarding damages based on an idealised model of care that was not reasonably attainable or necessary. The evidence showed that Rabe, despite severe brain injury and epilepsy, could function with basic reminders and did not require full-time qualified nursing staff. The court accepted the appellant's model of care, involving a trained housekeeper/carer at a higher salary, as sufficient and more realistic. The court found that no contingency deduction should be made from the capitalised cost of future care under the appellant's model, but upheld the 10% contingency deduction for other future medical expenses. The objection to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The trial court's order is set aside and replaced with a recalculated award.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for R4,036,296.80 as damages.
  • Interest on the amount at the rate prescribed by the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975 from 14 days after 23 December 2000 until date of payment.