Scheepers v RAF (81703/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 376 (2 March 2018)

Scheepers v RAF (81703/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 376 (2 March 2018)

The court found that the probabilities favour the plaintiff remaining employed until his anticipated early retirement age of 54, given his resilience, motivation, and strong employer support. The evidence did not justify a 50% contingency deduction, as the risk of early retirement was less than even. The defendant's submission of a 40% contingency deduction was preferred, resulting in a future loss of earnings calculation of R2,772,607. The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the agreed amounts and issued an order in terms of the draft annexed to the judgment.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 376
Parties
Plaintiff: Scheepers, JA; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2018
Case Number
81703/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for the agreed amounts, with a 40% contingency deduction applied to future loss of earnings.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Personal Injury, Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deduction, General Damages
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Personal Injury Loss of Earnings Contingency Deduction General 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scheepers, JA

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's future loss of earnings claim: 50% or 40%.
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff likely to remain employed until his anticipated early retirement age of 54 given his injuries and sequelae.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the probabilities favour the plaintiff remaining employed until his anticipated early retirement age of 54, given his resilience, motivation, and strong employer support. The evidence did not justify a 50% contingency deduction, as the risk of early retirement was less than even. The defendant's submission of a 40% contingency deduction was preferred, resulting in a future loss of earnings calculation of R2,772,607. The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the agreed amounts and issued an order in terms of the draft annexed to the judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for the agreed amounts, with a 40% contingency deduction applied to future loss of earnings.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the total sum of R3,469,761 to Adams & Adams Attorneys in settlement of the plaintiff's action, comprising past medical, hospital and related expenses (R97,154.09), past and future loss of earnings (R2,772,607), and general damages (R600,000).
  • The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act to compensate for 50% of the costs of future accommodation, treatment, or services resulting from the injuries sustained in the accident.