S.J obo S.J v Road Accident Fund (718/2019) [2022] ZAECBHC 41 (11 November 2022)

S.J obo S.J v Road Accident Fund (718/2019) [2022] ZAECBHC 41 (11 November 2022)

The court found that the customary sliding scale contingency of 25% for a child is appropriate in this case, as it is based on solid reasoning and experience. The expert evidence established that the minor child suffered a brain injury resulting in compromised attention and probable inability to pass Grade 12, which would significantly affect future earning capacity. The defendant failed to provide any substantive reason to deviate from the sliding scale. Accordingly, the court applied a 25% contingency to the quantification of future loss of income as determined by the actuary, resulting in an award of R3 252 126.75.

Citation
[2022] ZAECBHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: S.J obo S.J; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Case Number
718/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages
Outcome
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff R3 252 126.75 for future loss of income, R500 000 for general damages, interest on both amounts, an undertaking for future medical expenses, and costs of suit including expert and counsel fees.
Judges
Smith
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Income, Contingency Deduction, Personal Injury, Quantification of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Income Contingency Deduction Personal Injury Quantification 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.J obo S.J

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency percentage to apply to the minor child's claim for future loss of income.
  2. 2 Should the court deviate from the customary sliding scale contingency in the circumstances of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the customary sliding scale contingency of 25% for a child is appropriate in this case, as it is based on solid reasoning and experience. The expert evidence established that the minor child suffered a brain injury resulting in compromised attention and probable inability to pass Grade 12, which would significantly affect future earning capacity. The defendant failed to provide any substantive reason to deviate from the sliding scale. Accordingly, the court applied a 25% contingency to the quantification of future loss of income as determined by the actuary, resulting in an award of R3 252 126.75.

Court Disposition

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff R3 252 126.75 for future loss of income, R500 000 for general damages, interest on both amounts, an undertaking for future medical expenses, and costs of suit including expert and counsel fees.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R3 252 126.75 in respect of the minor child's loss of income within 180 calendar days of the date of this order.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R500 000 in respect of the minor child's general damages within 180 calendar days of the date of this order.