Sayed NO v Road Accident Fund [2015] ZAGPPHC 796 (30 November 2015)

Sayed NO v Road Accident Fund [2015] ZAGPPHC 796 (30 November 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff suffered severe cognitive and physical impairments as a result of the accident, supported by uncontested expert evidence. Pre-morbidly, she would have attained a higher certificate and progressed through the Paterson salary levels. Post-morbidly, she is left with a grade 10 education and is virtually unemployable except for sympathetic employment. The court accepted the plaintiff's actuary's calculation of future loss of income based on the median level for unskilled labourers, with a 15% contingency deduction for the uninjured scenario and a 25% deduction for the injured scenario. The defendant's proposal to use a higher post-morbid earning scenario was...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 796
Parties
Plaintiff: Advocate S Sayed NO (Curator ad litem of Z A M); Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2015
Case Number
22947/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for future loss of income is upheld; costs awarded on the High Court scale.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Future Loss of Income, Quantum of Damages, Curatorship, Contingency Deductions
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Future Loss of Income Quantum of Damages Curatorship 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate S Sayed NO (Curator ad litem of Z A M)

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Settled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is a reasonable award for the plaintiff's future loss of income resulting from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to pre-morbid and post-morbid earning scenarios.
  3. 3 Should the court endorse the detailed costs provisions proposed by the plaintiff's legal representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff suffered severe cognitive and physical impairments as a result of the accident, supported by uncontested expert evidence. Pre-morbidly, she would have attained a higher certificate and progressed through the Paterson salary levels. Post-morbidly, she is left with a grade 10 education and is virtually unemployable except for sympathetic employment. The court accepted the plaintiff's actuary's calculation of future loss of income based on the median level for unskilled labourers, with a 15% contingency deduction for the uninjured scenario and a 25% deduction for the injured scenario. The defendant's proposal to use a higher post-morbid earning scenario was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for future loss of income is upheld; costs awarded on the High Court scale.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R3,473,275.00 in respect of the plaintiff's future loss of income into the trust account of the plaintiff's attorneys.
  • Interest is payable on the aforesaid amount calculated from fourteen days after this order to date of payment at the applicable mora interest rate of 9%, alternatively 15.5% per annum.