Visser v Visser (15088/2009) [2012] ZAKZDHC 16; 2012 (4) SA 74 (KZD) (29 March 2012)

Visser v Visser (15088/2009) [2012] ZAKZDHC 16; 2012 (4) SA 74 (KZD) (29 March 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved damages in the sum of R150,051.59, comprising past medical expenses, future medical and psychological expenses, and general damages for pain, suffering, trauma, scarring, and disfigurement. The contingency for not undergoing scar revision surgery was set at 10%, based on expert evidence and the commitment of the parents. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the Rule 34(1) offer fixed liability for general damages, holding that only the damages proved at trial could be awarded. The assessment of general damages was guided by comparable cases, but the court noted that none were identical and that the minor's injuries and...

Citation
[2012] ZAKZDHC 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Nico Visser; Defendant: Herman Visser
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Case Number
15088/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeded; defendant ordered to pay the proved damages, interest, and costs.
Judges
Gorven
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Quantum of Damages, General Damages, Special Damages, Rule 34 Offer, Psychological Injury
Family and Children Delict Actio De Pauperie Quantum of Damages General Damages Special Damages Rule 34 Offer Psychological Injury

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nico Visser

Plaintiff

Herman Visser

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for injuries sustained by the minor child as a result of a dog bite?
  2. 2 Should the contingency for the possibility of not undergoing recommended scar revision surgery be set at 10% or 25%?
  3. 3 Does an unaccepted unconditional offer to settle under Rule 34(1) fix the minimum liability for general damages?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved damages in the sum of R150,051.59, comprising past medical expenses, future medical and psychological expenses, and general damages for pain, suffering, trauma, scarring, and disfigurement. The contingency for not undergoing scar revision surgery was set at 10%, based on expert evidence and the commitment of the parents. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the Rule 34(1) offer fixed liability for general damages, holding that only the damages proved at trial could be awarded. The assessment of general damages was guided by comparable cases, but the court noted that none were identical and that the minor's injuries and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeded; defendant ordered to pay the proved damages, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of R150,051.59.
  • Defendant must pay interest on that sum at 15.5% per annum from 6 February 2007 to date of payment.