Van der Merwe v RAF (42358/15) [2018] ZAGPPHC 374 (16 March 2018)

Van der Merwe v RAF (42358/15) [2018] ZAGPPHC 374 (16 March 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of damages attributable solely to the motor vehicle accident, as her expert reports did not distinguish between injuries sustained in the accident and those from a subsequent fall. The plaintiff, being uniquely aware of the later injuries, bore the onus to exclude any interruption of causation. The expert reports incorporated both sets of injuries, and the defendant was not required to prove the extent of the subsequent injuries. The absence of cross-examination was immaterial, as the defendant accepted the existence of two sets of injuries. The plaintiff did not provide primary evidence linking the subsequent injuries to the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 374
Parties
Plaintiff: Amore van der Merwe; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
42358/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination
Outcome
Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendant.
Judges
N Ranchod
Legal Topics
Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Quantum of Damages, Road Accident Fund Act, Absolution From Instance
Delict Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Quantum of Damages Road Accident Fund Act Absolution From Instance

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

Parties

Amore van der Merwe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved the quantum of damages attributable to the motor vehicle accident of 27 October 2012.
  2. 2 Whether subsequent injuries sustained by the plaintiff on 8 October 2015 constitute a novus actus interveniens interrupting causation.
  3. 3 Whether the expert reports properly distinguished between injuries from the accident and those from the later fall.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of damages attributable solely to the motor vehicle accident, as her expert reports did not distinguish between injuries sustained in the accident and those from a subsequent fall. The plaintiff, being uniquely aware of the later injuries, bore the onus to exclude any interruption of causation. The expert reports incorporated both sets of injuries, and the defendant was not required to prove the extent of the subsequent injuries. The absence of cross-examination was immaterial, as the defendant accepted the existence of two sets of injuries. The plaintiff did not provide primary evidence linking the subsequent injuries to the...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • There shall be absolution from the instance with costs.