M V and Others v Road Accident Fund (1705/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 131 (25 July 2019)

M V and Others v Road Accident Fund (1705/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 131 (25 July 2019)

The court held that the only issue for determination was the application of contingencies to the quantum, as the merits had been settled by court order. The defendant's attempt to revisit the issue of loss was rejected as an impermissible variation of the order. The court found that the contingency deductions of 5% for past loss and 10% for future loss for the children were appropriate. For the first plaintiff, a 25% contingency deduction for future loss, incorporating remarriage as part of life's vicissitudes, was deemed realistic. The court declined to apply a separate remarriage deduction, finding no special circumstances to warrant it. The plaintiffs were awarded damages subject to...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 131
Parties
Plaintiff: M V; Plaintiff: M Z N.O.; Plaintiff: M V N.O.; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Case Number
1705/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Quantum Determination After Settlement of Merits
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims for loss of support are upheld subject to the contingency deductions determined by the court.
Judges
V.M. Morobane
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Contingency Deductions, Road Accident Fund Act, Remarriage Deduction
Delict Loss of Support Contingency Deductions Road Accident Fund Act Remarriage Deduction

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M V

Plaintiff

M Z N.O.

Plaintiff

M V N.O.

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Quantum Determination After Settlement of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingency deductions applied to the plaintiffs' past and future losses are appropriate.
  2. 2 Whether a separate remarriage contingency deduction should be applied to the first plaintiff's future loss.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant may challenge the quantum after a court order settling the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the only issue for determination was the application of contingencies to the quantum, as the merits had been settled by court order. The defendant's attempt to revisit the issue of loss was rejected as an impermissible variation of the order. The court found that the contingency deductions of 5% for past loss and 10% for future loss for the children were appropriate. For the first plaintiff, a 25% contingency deduction for future loss, incorporating remarriage as part of life's vicissitudes, was deemed realistic. The court declined to apply a separate remarriage deduction, finding no special circumstances to warrant it. The plaintiffs were awarded damages subject to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims for loss of support are upheld subject to the contingency deductions determined by the court.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the first plaintiff R1,661,405.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff, as guardian of L H, R417,850.00.