Burger v Union National South British Insurance Company
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Colman J |
Judgment Date | 30 May 1975 |
Citation | 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) |
Court | Witwatersrand Local Division |
Colman, J.:
The plaintiff in this action claims damages for personal injuries which are alleged to have been suffered by her as a result of a motor collision which occurred on 9 August 1972.
On the morning of that day the plaintiff was sitting at the D wheel of her Volkswagen motor car, close to an intersection in one of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. Her car was stationary. She was waiting for a vehicle ahead of her to move on. While she was so waiting, her car was struck from behind by a larger motor vehicle and driven into the vehicle in front of it. There was considerable damage to the rear and front of the plaintiff's car. The first impact caused her head to be jerked E backwards and the second impact threw it forward, so that it actually came into contact with the steering wheel.
The plaintiff's case is that, in consequence of the backward and forward movements of her head, she suffered what is sometimes called a "whiplash injury" to her cervical spine: F that in consequence she has suffered, and is still suffering and will continue to suffer, pain, discomfort and disabilities involving a loss of some of the amenities of life: That by reason of the injury she was put to medical expenses and will have to incur further medical expenses in future, that she will suffer a loss in earnings and that the defendant is liable to G compensate her in respect of the injury and its consequences. There is no dispute about liability. The defendant admits that it is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for such damage as she may have suffered in consequence of the collision. There is, however, a dispute as to the quantum of those damages and on that issue I have heard the evidence of the plaintiff and that of three specialist orthopaedic surgeons.
The plaintiff's evidence on the question of damages may be H summarised in these terms:
She is, and was, at the time of the collision, a trained nurse and midwife with a diploma in public health nursing. At the time of the collision she was a married woman, 33 years of age, and she was in the part-time employment of the Johannesburg City Council as a health visitor. She divorced her husband in November 1973 in circumstances to which I shall later make reference, but since I think March 1974, he and she have again been living together.
Colman J
[The learned Judge analysed the evidence and continued].
I am thus faced with a tangle of imponderables. In addition to the normal difficulties of appreciating the intensity and effects of the plaintiff's symptoms, and relating them to a sum A of money, I have problems of causation and problems about what is likely to happen in the future. On the evidence, none of the uncertainties can be resolved with a substantial degree of confidence. I cannot say that the plaintiff, despite what she said at one stage, will undergo surgery. Nor can I say that she ought to do so as a reasonable way of mitigating her damages. B On the other hand she may perhaps, after some time has elapsed, be driven by despair to take the risk of an operation recommended by at least one experienced orthopaedic surgeon of standing, and I find it difficult to say that, if she does that, the expenditure so incurred will be so unreasonable that it should be left our of consideration in an assessment of damages. If the plaintiff does have an operation, I do not know to what extent, if any, her condition will improve. On the C other hand, if she has no surgery, I do not know whether, and if so, when, her symptoms will disappear. I do not know whether the plaintiff, if she had not been involved in the collision, would have suffered any or all of her disabilities, and if so, which or when.
At one end of the range of possibilities would lie a finding D that the plaintiff's symptoms are due entirely to the collision, that they will not disappear or diminish spontaneously, that she will be driven to have two surgicl operations, that neither will succeed, that she will emerge worse off than she is now, and that she will live out her life in that condition. Those assumptions, clearly, would lead me to a high award of damages. At the other end of the spectrum would E be a finding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo
...of loss occurring: in those cases a percentage of the loss is awarded. See Burger v Union National G South British Insurance Co 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) at 75D - G; Blyth v Van den Heever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) at 225G. As to the hybrid nature of the claim, the normal action for 'bodily injuries' co......
-
Attorney-General, Transvaal v Kader
...1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) at 1105F-G; Corbett (104) 1987 SALJ 52, especially at 68 in fine. As to B the onus, see Burger v UNSBIC Ltd 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) at 74H-75G, approved and applied in Blyth v Van den Heever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) at 225G-226B. As to the necessary compassionate understanding a ......
-
SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Hartley
...Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd 1974 (4) SA 503 (RA) at 506; Burger v Union National South British Insurance Co Ltd 1975 (4) SA 72 (W). As to the H contention that these judgments do not constitute a departure from the general rule regarding the date of assessment of damage......
-
General Accident Versekeringsmaatskappy SA Bpk v Uijs NO
...op 460H-461H; South British Insurance Co Ltd v Smit 1962 (3) SA 826 (A) op 837F-838A; Burger v Union National British C Insurance Co 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) op 75D-G; Blyth v Van den Reever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) op 225F-226B; Shield Insurance Co Ltd v Booysen 1979 (3) SA 953 (A) op 965G-H; Goldie ......
-
General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo
...of loss occurring: in those cases a percentage of the loss is awarded. See Burger v Union National G South British Insurance Co 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) at 75D - G; Blyth v Van den Heever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) at 225G. As to the hybrid nature of the claim, the normal action for 'bodily injuries' co......
-
Attorney-General, Transvaal v Kader
...1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) at 1105F-G; Corbett (104) 1987 SALJ 52, especially at 68 in fine. As to B the onus, see Burger v UNSBIC Ltd 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) at 74H-75G, approved and applied in Blyth v Van den Heever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) at 225G-226B. As to the necessary compassionate understanding a ......
-
SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Hartley
...Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd 1974 (4) SA 503 (RA) at 506; Burger v Union National South British Insurance Co Ltd 1975 (4) SA 72 (W). As to the H contention that these judgments do not constitute a departure from the general rule regarding the date of assessment of damage......
-
General Accident Versekeringsmaatskappy SA Bpk v Uijs NO
...op 460H-461H; South British Insurance Co Ltd v Smit 1962 (3) SA 826 (A) op 837F-838A; Burger v Union National British C Insurance Co 1975 (4) SA 72 (W) op 75D-G; Blyth v Van den Reever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) op 225F-226B; Shield Insurance Co Ltd v Booysen 1979 (3) SA 953 (A) op 965G-H; Goldie ......