None v Road Accident Fund (3887/2013) [2023] ZAECMKHC 39 (28 March 2023)

None v Road Accident Fund (3887/2013) [2023] ZAECMKHC 39 (28 March 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff's physical and psychological injuries, limited education, and rural location rendered him for all practical purposes unemployable in the open market. The defendant's acceptance of the expert reports and actuarial calculations precluded arguments for higher contingency deductions based on lack of proof of earnings. The authorities cited by the defendant were distinguished as they concerned minors, whereas the plaintiff was an adult with predictable earning capacity. Applying the Quantum Yearbook guidelines and considering the plaintiff's circumstances, the court held that a 10% deduction for pre-morbid and 15% for post-morbid loss of earning capacity was...

Citation
[2023] ZAECMKHC 39
Parties
Plaintiff: Moeketsi Roderick None; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Case Number
3887/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for loss of earning capacity is upheld with contingency deductions of 10% (pre-morbid) and 15% (post-morbid). Plaintiff is awarded costs, including those for the postponement.
Judges
Laing
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moeketsi Roderick None

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate general contingency deduction to be applied to the plaintiff's pre-morbid and post-morbid loss of earning capacity?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to costs, including those for the postponement on 28 November 2022?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's physical and psychological injuries, limited education, and rural location rendered him for all practical purposes unemployable in the open market. The defendant's acceptance of the expert reports and actuarial calculations precluded arguments for higher contingency deductions based on lack of proof of earnings. The authorities cited by the defendant were distinguished as they concerned minors, whereas the plaintiff was an adult with predictable earning capacity. Applying the Quantum Yearbook guidelines and considering the plaintiff's circumstances, the court held that a 10% deduction for pre-morbid and 15% for post-morbid loss of earning capacity was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for loss of earning capacity is upheld with contingency deductions of 10% (pre-morbid) and 15% (post-morbid). Plaintiff is awarded costs, including those for the postponement.

Orders

  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff R 2,146,575 as damages for loss of earning capacity.
  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit on a party and party scale, including costs of counsel and reasonable qualifying and travelling expenses to consult with Dr PA Olivier, Ms P Mdlokolo, Dr G de Kock, and Munro Forensic Actuaries.