Grahan v Road Accident Fund (8989/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 737 (4 November 2021)

Grahan v Road Accident Fund (8989/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 737 (4 November 2021)

The court found that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries resulting in a substantial loss of earning capacity. The salary paid by his wife as owner of the business was deemed ex gratia and not reflective of actual earning capacity, in line with the principle from Fulton v Road Accident Fund. The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence and actuarial scenario that treated the plaintiff as unemployable, subject to a higher contingency deduction of 25% due to the possibility that the plaintiff may continue to receive a salary until retirement and the resilience of the business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant's offer for past medical expenses was made an interim payment,...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 737
Parties
Plaintiff: John Peter Grahan; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
8989/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled
Outcome
The plaintiff's claim for damages was upheld, with orders made for interim payment of past medical expenses, future medical expenses via section 17(4) certificate, loss of income and earning capacity subject to a 25% contingency deduction, and general damages awarded as claimed.
Judges
DT Skosana
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund, Loss of Income, General Damages, Contingency Deduction, Patrimonial Loss
Delict Road Accident Fund Loss of Income General Damages Contingency Deduction Patrimonial Loss

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Peter Grahan

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff under the heads of past medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of income and earning capacity, and general damages.
  2. 2 Should the contingency deduction for loss of income be increased in light of the plaintiff's circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic?
  3. 3 Does the principle from Fulton v Road Accident Fund apply to the plaintiff's continued salary from his wife's business?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries resulting in a substantial loss of earning capacity. The salary paid by his wife as owner of the business was deemed ex gratia and not reflective of actual earning capacity, in line with the principle from Fulton v Road Accident Fund. The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence and actuarial scenario that treated the plaintiff as unemployable, subject to a higher contingency deduction of 25% due to the possibility that the plaintiff may continue to receive a salary until retirement and the resilience of the business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant's offer for past medical expenses was made an interim payment,...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claim for damages was upheld, with orders made for interim payment of past medical expenses, future medical expenses via section 17(4) certificate, loss of income and earning capacity subject to a 25% contingency deduction, and general damages awarded as claimed.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R943,505.39 as interim payment for past hospital, medical and related expenditure, with the balance of the claim postponed sine die.
  • The defendant shall issue a section 17(4) certificate for 90% of future medical expenses.