Van Ghent v Road Accident Fund (1194/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 187 (17 November 2017)

Van Ghent v Road Accident Fund (1194/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 187 (17 November 2017)

The court found that, although the plaintiff suffered serious physical and psychological injuries and her expert reports were admitted by the defendant, there was insufficient justification to deviate from the standard contingency rates. The plaintiff's employment history, age, and the economic climate were considered, as well as the possibility of future improvement through therapy. The court exercised its discretion and applied a contingency deduction of 5% for past loss of earnings and 15% for future loss of earnings, rejecting both the plaintiff's proposed lower rates and the defendant's higher rates. The total quantum awarded was calculated accordingly, and the defendant was ordered...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 187
Parties
Plaintiff: Natasha Van Ghent; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Case Number
1194/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Liability Conceded
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages is upheld. The defendant is ordered to pay the total quantum calculated with contingencies of 5% for past loss and 15% for future loss of earnings, as well as general damages and past medical expenses. The defendant must provide an undertaking for future medical costs and pay the...
Judges
Daffue
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deductions, General Damages, Future Medical Expenses
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earnings Contingency Deductions General Damages Future Medical Expenses

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natasha Van Ghent

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Liability Conceded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What contingency percentages should be applied to the calculation of past and future loss of earnings for the plaintiff?
  2. 2 Is there justification to deviate from the standard contingency rates in light of the plaintiff's circumstances and expert evidence?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries and losses?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the plaintiff suffered serious physical and psychological injuries and her expert reports were admitted by the defendant, there was insufficient justification to deviate from the standard contingency rates. The plaintiff's employment history, age, and the economic climate were considered, as well as the possibility of future improvement through therapy. The court exercised its discretion and applied a contingency deduction of 5% for past loss of earnings and 15% for future loss of earnings, rejecting both the plaintiff's proposed lower rates and the defendant's higher rates. The total quantum awarded was calculated accordingly, and the defendant was ordered...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages is upheld. The defendant is ordered to pay the total quantum calculated with contingencies of 5% for past loss and 15% for future loss of earnings, as well as general damages and past medical expenses. The defendant must provide an undertaking for future medical costs and pay the...

Orders

  • Defendant shall pay Plaintiff R2,214,987.19 in full and final settlement, to be paid into the Plaintiff's attorneys' trust account.
  • Defendant shall provide an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for future medical and related expenses arising from the injuries sustained in the collision.