Tshoane v Road Accident Fund (42022/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 377 (21 January 2021)

Tshoane v Road Accident Fund (42022/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 377 (21 January 2021)

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding pre-accident earnings and business growth to be vague, contradictory, and unreliable. The plaintiff failed to disclose that she had an assistant pre-accident and could not provide meaningful proof of her earnings or business growth. The court accepted that the plaintiff required an assistant both before and after the accident, but the cost of the assistant post-accident was higher. The actuarial calculation for the cost of an assistant until retirement age was accepted, subject to a 50% contingency deduction due to the pre-existing need for assistance. The court rejected the actuarial calculation for past loss of earnings due to lack of...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 377
Parties
Plaintiff: Tebogo Precious Tshoane; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Case Number
42022/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages After Merits Conceded
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of earnings partially succeeds. Lump sum awarded for past loss of earnings and quantified future cost of assistant, subject to contingency deduction.
Judges
Maritz AJ
Legal Topics
Road Accident Claim, Loss of Earnings, Quantification of Damages, Contingency Deduction, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Claim Loss of Earnings Quantification of Damages Contingency Deduction Burden of Proof

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tebogo Precious Tshoane

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages After Merits Conceded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus to prove past and future loss of earnings resulting from injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
  2. 2 How the cost of an assistant required by the plaintiff post-accident should be quantified and what contingency deduction is appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's evidence regarding pre-accident earnings and business growth is reliable and sufficient for actuarial calculation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding pre-accident earnings and business growth to be vague, contradictory, and unreliable. The plaintiff failed to disclose that she had an assistant pre-accident and could not provide meaningful proof of her earnings or business growth. The court accepted that the plaintiff required an assistant both before and after the accident, but the cost of the assistant post-accident was higher. The actuarial calculation for the cost of an assistant until retirement age was accepted, subject to a 50% contingency deduction due to the pre-existing need for assistance. The court rejected the actuarial calculation for past loss of earnings due to lack of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of earnings partially succeeds. Lump sum awarded for past loss of earnings and quantified future cost of assistant, subject to contingency deduction.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the total amount of R1,198,650.00 (R998,650.00 for future cost of assistant plus R200,000.00 for past loss of earnings).
  • Defendant is ordered to pay interest on the above amount at the prescribed rate from date of judgment until date of payment.