Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Magada OBO A M v Road Accident Fund (651/2011) [2017] ZALMPTHC 12 (17 August 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court considered the expert reports from both parties, noting that the minor child suffered non-serious physical injuries but may experience emotional difficulties affecting her academic and future work performance. The educational psychologist’s assessment was accepted, indicating a risk of reduced educational attainment and earning capacity due to the accident. Balancing all evidence, the court determined that a fair and reasonable compensation for loss of earnings is R900,000.00, rather than the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

Court disposition

The court awarded the plaintiff, in her representative capacity, R900,000.00 for loss of earnings, with interest and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff in her representative capacity the sum of R900,000.00 for loss of earnings.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10.25% per annum from 14 days after the date of judgment to the date of final payment.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of the action on the High Court scale, including costs of obtaining expert reports.

02

Material facts

Parties

Magada Fhulufhelo Rosemary OBO A M

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Loss of Earnings Awarded: ZAR 900,000
  • Interest Rate Per Annum: ZAR 10.25

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff argued, based on expert reports, that the minor child suffered injuries which may impact her future earning capacity. The plaintiff submitted that the minor child would likely enter the labour market with a lower level of education and earning potential than she would have had absent the accident. The total compensation claimed was R2,804,679.00, supported by projections from industrial and educational psychologists.
Respondent
The defendant accepted liability for the merits but disputed the quantum of damages for loss of earnings. The defendant relied on expert reports indicating that the minor child suffered non-serious injuries and would be able to cope academically and in the open labour market, suggesting that any reduction in earning capacity would be minimal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Southern Insurance Association v Balie NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 113 G-1

    Any enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is speculative and involves predictions about the future. The court may either make a round estimate or use mathematical calculations based on evidence.

  2. 02

    Michael v Linksfield Park Clinic 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA)

    Expert opinions must be founded on logical reasoning and supported by evidence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court considered the expert reports from both parties, noting that the minor child suffered non-serious physical injuries but may experience emotional difficulties affecting her academic and future work performance. The educational psychologist’s assessment was accepted, indicating a risk of reduced educational attainment and earning capacity due to the accident. Balancing all evidence, the court determined that a fair and reasonable compensation for loss of earnings is R900,000.00, rather than the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

Obiter and limits

  • The court observed that damages for loss of earning capacity are inherently speculative and require judicial estimation based on available evidence.
  • The minor child is likely to enter the labour market with a lower level of education than she would have had absent the accident.

Court disposition

The court awarded the plaintiff, in her representative capacity, R900,000.00 for loss of earnings, with interest and costs.

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff in her representative capacity the sum of R900,000.00 for loss of earnings.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10.25% per annum from 14 days after the date of judgment to the date of final payment.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of the action on the High Court scale, including costs of obtaining expert reports.

Source and reliance status

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Judgment

[2017] ZALMPTHC 12

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

LIMPOPO DIVISION, THOHOYANDOU

REPORTABLE:

NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

CASE NO: 651/2011

17/8/2017

In the matter between:-

MAGADA

FHULUFHELO

ROSEMARY

PLAINTIFF

OBO

A M

AND

ROAD

ACCIDENT

FUND

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

MUSHASHA AJ

[1] The Plaintiff instituted an action on behalf of the minor child namely A M for damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained by the minor child in a motor vehicle accident.

[2] The merits have been settled in favour of the minor child.

[3] The outstanding issue for determination by Court is loss of earnings and earning capacity. In other words the Court is to determine the amount payable to the Plaintiff as compensation for loss of earnings.

[4] According to the pleadings the Plaintiff s minor child is alleged to have suffered injuries set out in his clinical records. The minor child sustained bruises on the forehead, right cheek, right leg and right lower limb.

[5] The total amount of compensation claimed by the Plaintiff is reflected as R2 804 679.00.

[6] It was held in Southern Insurance Association V Balie N0.1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 113 G-1 that:-

"Any enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature speculative because it involves a predictions as to the future, without the benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs or oracles.

All that the Court can do is to make an estimate which is often a very rough estimate of the present value of the loss. It has open to it two possible approaches. One is for the judge to make a round estimate of an amount which seems to him to be fair and reasonable.

That is entirely a matter of guesswork, a blind plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to make an assessment by way of mathematical calculations on the basis of assumptions resting on the evidence......"

[7] In this matter both parties filed expert reports to guide the Court to make a fair and reasonable amount of compensation.

[8] In Michael V Linksfield Park clinic 2001 (3) SA 1188 SCA; it was held that the opinion of expert witnessess must be founded on logical reasoning.

[9] In the joint minute of Christa Du Toit and Andrie Van der Weshuizen and Nicolene Cotze, the industrial Psychologists agreed that pre-accident, the minor child could have completed matric and studied full or part time and within 3-5 years she would have opted for whatever job was available with a fragmented income somewhere on a Peterson level A1/A2 Medium basic salary. After obtaining applicable certificates should start to earn Paterson level B1 with gradual progression Paterson level C1/C2 towards age 45 as a career ceiling.

[10] All reports filed by the Plaintiff indicate that the minor child suffered non-serious injuries and as such the minor child is able to cope well academically with a good progression in relation to academic performance and work prospect.

[11] All reports collectively considered paint the picture of the minor child who can still cope well at school and will enjoy employment in the open labour market.

[12] Nevertheless, Ms Linda Rudenberg, the Educational Psychologists, concluded that the minor child's emotional assessment suggests that she is at risk of experiencing emotional difficulties as a result of the accident which would further affect her performance at school and that the emotional difficulties may further affect the minor child when she goes to the work place. The minor child is likely to enter the open labour market with a lower level of education than she would had she not been involved in an accident. I find merit in this conclusion.

[13] Regard being had to all the evidence including the experts reports I hold the view that the amount which seems to be fair and reasonable as compensation for loss of earnings would be R900 000-00.

[14] In the result the following order is made.

[14.1] The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff in her representative capacity the sum of R900 000-00 for loss of earnings.

[14.2] The Defendant shall pay the interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10,25% per annum as from 14 days after the date of judgment to date of final payment.

[14.3] The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff costs of the action on the High Court scale including costs of obtaining experts reports.

______

MUSHASHA M.J

ACTING

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Southern Insurance Association v Balie NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A)

Case cited

Michael v Linksfield Park Clinic 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.