F.A.S.S and Another v Road Accident Fund (19993/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1028 (12 December 2014)

F.A.S.S and Another v Road Accident Fund (19993/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1028 (12 December 2014)

The court found that the inclusion of the lump sum payment in the deceased's projected future income was not justified, as the probability of the sale of Valley Lodge was not established by sufficient evidence. The expert's opinion was based solely on the owners' intention to sell, which is inadequate without consideration of other relevant factors. Regarding the remarriage contingency, the court held that its application must be based on the factual circumstances of the case and not applied as a matter of course. The duty of support is not limited to marriage and is gender-neutral. In this case, there was no evidence to justify the application of a re-partnering contingency. Both the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1028
Parties
Plaintiff: S[…], F[…] A[…] S[…]; Plaintiff: S[…], J[…] M[…]; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Case Number
19993/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
The plaintiff's claim for damages for loss of support is granted in the total sum of R4,234,677.00. Both the prospective earnings related to the sale of Valley Lodge and the remarriage contingency deduction are excluded from the calculation.
Judges
Kollapen
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Remarriage Contingency, Actuarial Calculation, Expert Evidence, Duty of Support
Delict Civil Procedure Loss of Support Remarriage Contingency Actuarial Calculation Expert Evidence Duty of Support

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

Parties

S[…], F[…] A[…] S[…]

Plaintiff

S[…], J[…] M[…]

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's projected future income should include a lump sum payment contingent on the sale of Valley Lodge.
  2. 2 Whether a 'remarriage contingency' should be applied to the plaintiff's claim for loss of support.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the inclusion of the lump sum payment in the deceased's projected future income was not justified, as the probability of the sale of Valley Lodge was not established by sufficient evidence. The expert's opinion was based solely on the owners' intention to sell, which is inadequate without consideration of other relevant factors. Regarding the remarriage contingency, the court held that its application must be based on the factual circumstances of the case and not applied as a matter of course. The duty of support is not limited to marriage and is gender-neutral. In this case, there was no evidence to justify the application of a re-partnering contingency. Both the...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claim for damages for loss of support is granted in the total sum of R4,234,677.00. Both the prospective earnings related to the sale of Valley Lodge and the remarriage contingency deduction are excluded from the calculation.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R4,234,677.00 in respect of damages for loss of support.
  • The draft order prepared by the parties is made an order of court.