Smit v Road Accident Fund (1820/10) [2013] ZAECGHC 57 (5 March 2013)

Smit v Road Accident Fund (1820/10) [2013] ZAECGHC 57 (5 March 2013)

The court found that the adjustment for contingencies is a discretionary process balancing positive and negative factors. The plaintiff was a talented businesswoman likely to have grown her business, but as a sole proprietor, her success was vulnerable to the risks and uncertainties of life. Her current employment is stable but dependent on the continued success of Mr Wolff's business, which is not guaranteed. Considering the evidence, agreements between the parties, and the expert reports, the court determined that the appropriate contingency deductions are 10% for pre-morbid past earnings, 20% for pre-morbid future earnings, 3% for post-morbid past earnings, and 20% for post-morbid...

Citation
[2013] ZAECGHC 57
Parties
Plaintiff: Marlene Irene Smit; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2013
Case Number
1820/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds. Defendant is liable for 100% of plaintiff's damages, including general damages, medical expenses, and loss of income/earning capacity, with specified contingency deductions.
Judges
M J Lowe
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, General Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act General Damages Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Expert Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlene Irene Smit

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's past and future loss of income and earning capacity?
  2. 2 Should the post-morbid career scenario of Mr Martiny be preferred over that of Mr Benade?
  3. 3 What is the quantum of damages to be awarded for general damages, medical expenses, and loss of earnings?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the adjustment for contingencies is a discretionary process balancing positive and negative factors. The plaintiff was a talented businesswoman likely to have grown her business, but as a sole proprietor, her success was vulnerable to the risks and uncertainties of life. Her current employment is stable but dependent on the continued success of Mr Wolff's business, which is not guaranteed. Considering the evidence, agreements between the parties, and the expert reports, the court determined that the appropriate contingency deductions are 10% for pre-morbid past earnings, 20% for pre-morbid future earnings, 3% for post-morbid past earnings, and 20% for post-morbid...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds. Defendant is liable for 100% of plaintiff's damages, including general damages, medical expenses, and loss of income/earning capacity, with specified contingency deductions.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for 100% of her damages.
  • Defendant is to pay Plaintiff R350,000.00 for general damages.