M v Road Accident Fund (49890/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 315 (7 July 2017)

M v Road Accident Fund (49890/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 315 (7 July 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient documentary proof to substantiate a claim for past loss of income, and therefore such claim was disregarded. Regarding future loss of income, the court accepted the expert evidence that the plaintiff retained the ability to work as a graphic designer in a sedentary environment, but with some loss of efficacy and vulnerability compared to an uninjured individual. The court exercised its discretion to apply contingency deductions of 5% pre-morbid and 15% post-morbid, resulting in a future loss of income calculation of R413,674. For general damages, the court considered comparable cases and the nature and extent of the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 315
Parties
Plaintiff: N M; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2017
Case Number
49890/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages After Settlement of Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded damages for future loss of income and general damages, with past loss of income claim disregarded due to lack of proof.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Quantum of Damages, Loss of Earnings, General Damages, Contingency Deductions
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Quantum of Damages Loss of Earnings General Damages Contingency Deductions

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

Parties

N M

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages After Settlement of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for past and future loss of earnings and general damages following the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident.
  2. 2 What contingency deductions should be applied to the calculation of future loss of income.
  3. 3 Is the plaintiff entitled to compensation for past loss of income given the available evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient documentary proof to substantiate a claim for past loss of income, and therefore such claim was disregarded. Regarding future loss of income, the court accepted the expert evidence that the plaintiff retained the ability to work as a graphic designer in a sedentary environment, but with some loss of efficacy and vulnerability compared to an uninjured individual. The court exercised its discretion to apply contingency deductions of 5% pre-morbid and 15% post-morbid, resulting in a future loss of income calculation of R413,674. For general damages, the court considered comparable cases and the nature and extent of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded damages for future loss of income and general damages, with past loss of income claim disregarded due to lack of proof.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff R664,806.60, which includes future loss of income of R413,674.00 and general damages of R325,000.00 minus a 10% apportionment.
  • Defendant to pay interest at 10.25% from 14 days after the date of this order.