Hagemann and Another v Road Accident Fund (ECJ 2004/002) [2004] ZAECHC 21 (27 July 2004)

Hagemann and Another v Road Accident Fund (ECJ 2004/002) [2004] ZAECHC 21 (27 July 2004)

The court found that the second plaintiff, despite her accident, retained the ability and ambition to pursue her chosen career as a veterinary nurse. The expert evidence confirmed her cognitive abilities and prospects for completing her education and professional training. The court considered the usual vicissitudes of life, including illness, unemployment, and the niche nature of her chosen profession, but found no evidence that her life expectancy was adversely affected. The court rejected the argument that no contingency deduction should be made, noting that the calculation of future loss of income extends to the end of her career and thus requires consideration of long-term risks. The...

Citation
[2004] ZAECHC 21
Parties
Plaintiff: Barry Bruce Hagemann; Plaintiff: Ella Joy Hagemann; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2004
Case Number
ECJ 2004/002
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs with damages apportioned and contingency deductions applied as determined by the court.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deduction, Road Accident Fund Act, Quantum of Damages
Delict Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deduction Road Accident Fund Act Quantum of Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Bruce Hagemann

Plaintiff

Ella Joy Hagemann

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the second plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of earning capacity?
  2. 2 Should different percentages be applied to past and future loss of income?
  3. 3 How should the agreed apportionment affect the damages awarded?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second plaintiff, despite her accident, retained the ability and ambition to pursue her chosen career as a veterinary nurse. The expert evidence confirmed her cognitive abilities and prospects for completing her education and professional training. The court considered the usual vicissitudes of life, including illness, unemployment, and the niche nature of her chosen profession, but found no evidence that her life expectancy was adversely affected. The court rejected the argument that no contingency deduction should be made, noting that the calculation of future loss of income extends to the end of her career and thus requires consideration of long-term risks. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs with damages apportioned and contingency deductions applied as determined by the court.

Orders

  • The defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiff the amount of R16,644.36.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the second plaintiff the amount of R485,687.00 (being R140,000.00 for general damages and R345,687.00 for past and future loss of income).