van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 176; A283/2020 (10 March 2023)

van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 176; A283/2020 (10 March 2023)

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving a causal connection between the injuries sustained in the 2012 accident and her claimed losses, particularly in light of the subsequent fall in 2015 and the lack of disclosure of this fact to all relevant experts. The appellant's confirmation of the expert reports did not exclude the impact of the fall, and no evidence was presented to establish that the injuries from the fall were causally linked to the original accident. The court found that the respondent was not required to prove novus actus interveniens, as the burden rested on the appellant to prove her case. Consequently, the court was unable to adjudicate...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 176
Parties
Appellant: Amore van der Merwe; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Case Number
A283/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Ranchod J Delivered on 16 March 2018
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
van der Westhuizen, P Phahlane, I de Vos
Legal Topics
Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Quantum of Damages, Road Accident Fund Act, Burden of Proof
Delict Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Quantum of Damages Road Accident Fund Act 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amore van der Merwe

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Ranchod J Delivered on 16 March 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved a causal connection between the injuries sustained in the 2012 accident and her claimed losses.
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent fall in 2015 constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the onus to prove the quantum of damages attributable to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving a causal connection between the injuries sustained in the 2012 accident and her claimed losses, particularly in light of the subsequent fall in 2015 and the lack of disclosure of this fact to all relevant experts. The appellant's confirmation of the expert reports did not exclude the impact of the fall, and no evidence was presented to establish that the injuries from the fall were causally linked to the original accident. The court found that the respondent was not required to prove novus actus interveniens, as the burden rested on the appellant to prove her case. Consequently, the court was unable to adjudicate...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.