FH obo L and M v Road Accident Fund (66910/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1095 (17 September 2019)

FH obo L and M v Road Accident Fund (66910/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1095 (17 September 2019)

The court found that, based on the admitted expert evidence, the minor children would remain financially dependent until completion of their Honours degrees, which could extend their dependency to age 25. The plaintiff's actual income was proven and must be included in the calculation, rejecting the defendant's actuary's assumption of unemployability. The defendant's failure to appoint its own educational or industrial psychologist and its reliance solely on actuarial evidence was insufficient to challenge the plaintiff's case. The court accepted the plaintiff's actuarial calculation (Basis B, age 25) as correct, and ordered compensation accordingly, excluding any unconstitutional...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1095
Parties
Plaintiff: FH obo L and M; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
66910/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for loss of support is upheld; compensation awarded based on dependency until age 25.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Quantum of Damages, Dependency Claim, Actuarial Evidence, Remarriage Contingency
Civil Procedure Delict Loss of Support Quantum of Damages Dependency Claim Actuarial Evidence Remarriage Contingency

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

Parties

FH obo L and M

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 At what age will the minor children cease to be financially dependent for purposes of calculating loss of support.
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to compensation based on actual proven loss, considering her income status.
  3. 3 Which actuarial calculation accurately reflects the loss of support owed by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, based on the admitted expert evidence, the minor children would remain financially dependent until completion of their Honours degrees, which could extend their dependency to age 25. The plaintiff's actual income was proven and must be included in the calculation, rejecting the defendant's actuary's assumption of unemployability. The defendant's failure to appoint its own educational or industrial psychologist and its reliance solely on actuarial evidence was insufficient to challenge the plaintiff's case. The court accepted the plaintiff's actuarial calculation (Basis B, age 25) as correct, and ordered compensation accordingly, excluding any unconstitutional...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for loss of support is upheld; compensation awarded based on dependency until age 25.

Orders

  • The draft order marked 'X', as amended, is made an order of court.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R4,454,648 for loss of support.