Hayman v RMB Properties (Pty) Ltd (36423/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 153 (11 December 2009)

Hayman v RMB Properties (Pty) Ltd (36423/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 153 (11 December 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for injuries sustained due to the defendant's negligence, with liability apportioned at 80% to the defendant and 20% to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's argument to reduce future medical expenses based on speculative pre-existing conditions, finding no evidence that the plaintiff would have incurred such expenses absent the accident. The plaintiff's refusal to undergo surgery meant only conservative treatment costs were awarded. General damages were assessed at R75,000, considering pain, suffering, and significant loss of amenities, but moderated for age and the likelihood that some limitations would have occurred...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 153
Parties
Plaintiff: Zurita Hayman; Defendant: RMB Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2009
Case Number
36423/07
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Quantum Assessment After Settlement on Merits
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff, subject to apportionment.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Damages Personal Injury 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zurita Hayman

Plaintiff

RMB Properties (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Quantum Assessment After Settlement on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries sustained due to the defendant's negligence.
  2. 2 Should future medical expenses be awarded given the plaintiff's refusal to undergo surgery.
  3. 3 How should general damages be assessed considering the plaintiff's age and pre-existing condition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for injuries sustained due to the defendant's negligence, with liability apportioned at 80% to the defendant and 20% to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's argument to reduce future medical expenses based on speculative pre-existing conditions, finding no evidence that the plaintiff would have incurred such expenses absent the accident. The plaintiff's refusal to undergo surgery meant only conservative treatment costs were awarded. General damages were assessed at R75,000, considering pain, suffering, and significant loss of amenities, but moderated for age and the likelihood that some limitations would have occurred...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff, subject to apportionment.

Orders

  • The defendant must pay R2,425.17 for past medical expenses.
  • The defendant must pay R20,000 for future medical expenses (conservative treatment only).