Viljoen v Road Accident Fund (3312/2018) [2025] ZAFSHC 144 (22 May 2025)

Viljoen v Road Accident Fund (3312/2018) [2025] ZAFSHC 144 (22 May 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries had a negative impact on his earning capacity, which was not disputed by the defendant. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff would retire earlier than normal, most likely at age 60, and would have worked at Sanlam until age 65. The court accepted that the plaintiff would qualify as a CFP and could work beyond normal retirement age, but found that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the claim that he would work until age 75. The court held that a reasonable probability is that the plaintiff would be able to work until age 70, and that his income post-retirement would not be substantially reduced given his specialised skills....

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 144
Parties
Plaintiff: Denis Johan Viljoen; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Case Number
3312/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Hearing of Evidence and Argument
Outcome
The defendant is liable to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages, with loss of earnings to be calculated up to age 70 and contingency deductions applied as ordered.
Judges
L. Mpama
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deductions, Expert Evidence, Retirement Age, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earnings Contingency Deductions Expert Evidence Retirement Age Costs Award

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

Parties

Denis Johan Viljoen

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Hearing of Evidence and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate retirement age for the plaintiff for purposes of calculating future loss of income.
  2. 2 What is the plaintiff's probable income post-normal retirement age.
  3. 3 What contingency deductions should be applied to the calculation of loss of earnings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries had a negative impact on his earning capacity, which was not disputed by the defendant. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff would retire earlier than normal, most likely at age 60, and would have worked at Sanlam until age 65. The court accepted that the plaintiff would qualify as a CFP and could work beyond normal retirement age, but found that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the claim that he would work until age 75. The court held that a reasonable probability is that the plaintiff would be able to work until age 70, and that his income post-retirement would not be substantially reduced given his specialised skills....

Court Disposition

The defendant is liable to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages, with loss of earnings to be calculated up to age 70 and contingency deductions applied as ordered.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff for loss of earnings in the amount to be calculated, with a contingency deduction of 15% pre-morbid income and 30% post-morbid income.