Iershaad v Road Accident Fund (33182/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 205 (7 September 2012)

Iershaad v Road Accident Fund (33182/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 205 (7 September 2012)

The court held that the actuarial report, which included a contingency deduction for the plaintiff's future vulnerability and disability, sufficiently accounted for any future loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, there was no basis for a separate award for loss of earning capacity, as this would amount to double compensation. The quantum of damages was determined in accordance with the actuarial calculations and the agreed apportionment. The defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for 80% of his damages, with specific amounts allocated for general damages, past medical expenses, past loss of earnings, and future loss of earnings. Costs were awarded on the High Court scale,...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 205
Parties
Plaintiff: Adam Iershaad; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2012
Case Number
33182/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum and Costs Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded damages apportioned at 80% of total proven losses; defendant ordered to pay specified amounts and costs.
Judges
LI Vorster
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deduction, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Personal Injury Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deduction 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Iershaad

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a separate award should be made for future loss of earning capacity in addition to the actuarially calculated future loss of income.
  2. 2 Whether the contingency deduction applied in the actuarial report adequately accounts for the plaintiff's future vulnerability and earning potential.
  3. 3 Determination of the quantum of damages and apportionment following settlement of merits and certain heads of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the actuarial report, which included a contingency deduction for the plaintiff's future vulnerability and disability, sufficiently accounted for any future loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, there was no basis for a separate award for loss of earning capacity, as this would amount to double compensation. The quantum of damages was determined in accordance with the actuarial calculations and the agreed apportionment. The defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for 80% of his damages, with specific amounts allocated for general damages, past medical expenses, past loss of earnings, and future loss of earnings. Costs were awarded on the High Court scale,...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded damages apportioned at 80% of total proven losses; defendant ordered to pay specified amounts and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to compensate plaintiff for 80% of damages arising from the collision.
  • Defendant to pay R1,070,396.71 to plaintiff's attorneys, Adams & Adams, by direct transfer.