General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) |
General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers;
Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO;
General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo
1987 (3) SA 577 (A)
1987 (3) SA p577
Citation |
1987 (3) SA 577 (A) |
Court |
Appèlafdeling |
Judge |
Rabie Wn HR, Jansen AR, Viljoen AR, Hoexter AR en Botha AR |
Heard |
May 6, 1987; May 7, 1987; May 8, 1987 |
Judgment |
June 2, 1987 |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde
Nalatigheid — Aksie om skadevergoeding — Vir liggaamlike beserings — Verlies van verdienvermoë — Datum waarop skadevergoeding bereken moet word en datum van verdiskontering — By toekenning van skadevergoeding moet Hof 'n bedrag probeer bepaal wat billik teenoor eiser en verweerder is — D Geen gesag dat vergoeding vir verlies van inkomste (verdienvermoë) altyd, of noodwendig, soos op datum van die delik bepaal moet word nie — Verlies van verdienvermoë is nie op die datum van delik voltooi en bepaalbaar nie soos in geval van 'n liggaamlike saak — Dus nie verkeerd om E vergoeding vir skade wat tussen datum van delik en datum van verhoor gely word onverminderd toe te laat nie, dws sonder dat dit tot op datum van delik verdiskonteer word — Beslissings van Verhoorhowe dat skadevergoeding vir skade na verhoordatum gely tot op datum van verhoor en nie datum van delik nie F verdiskonteer moes word, bevestig.
Nalatigheid — Aksie om skadevergoeding — Vir liggaamlike beserings — Verlies van verdienvermoë — Waarskynlike gevolg van beserings dat eiser nie sal trou en kinders hê nie — Betoog deur verweerder dat eiser se skadevergoeding deur gekapitaliseerde bedrag van gevolglike besparing verminder moet word, verwerp — Verhoorhof se beslissing dat hierdie faktore G in ag geneem moet word wanneer aftrekking vir algemene gebeurlikhede gemaak word — Semble: As 'n besering iemand se verdienvermoë vernietig en hy as gevolg daarvan R50 000 verloor wat hy sou verdien het, beloop sy skade R50 000 of hy daarna trou of nie.
Headnote : Kopnota
Dit is meermale beklemtoon in beslissings van ons Howe dat 'n H hof by die toekenning van skadevergoeding 'n bedrag moet probeer bepaal wat billik teenoor die eiser en die verweerder is en verder, dat by die bepaling van die betrokke bedrag 'n hof nie verplig is om die een of ander berekeningsmetode te volg nie. Daar bestaan geen gesag wat bepaal dat vergoeding vir verlies van inkomste (verlies van verdienvermoë) altyd, of noodwendig, soos op die datum van die delik bepaal moet word nie. Dieselfde geld wat vergoeding vir verlies van onderhoud betref.
Dit klink waarskynlik logies om te sê dat, aangesien die I slagoffer van 'n delik se skuldoorsaak op die dag van die delik ontstaan, sy vergoeding weens die verlies wat hy ly ook soos op daardie dag bepaal moet word. Dit is egter nie noodwendig, of in alle omstandighede, 'n korrekte stelling nie, en veral moet dit nie aanvaar word dat, omdat skade aan 'n saak soos 'n motorkar soos op die dag van die delik bepaal moet word, vergoeding vir verlies van verdienvermoë of onderhoud noodwendig ook soos op die dag van die delik vasgestel moet J word nie. Die twee gevalle is nie
1987 (3) SA p578
A dieselfde nie. Wanneer 'n voorwerp soos 'n motorkar vernietig of beskadig word, is die vernietiging of beskadiging gewoonlik onmiddellik voltooi en kan die omvang van die eiser se skade ook dadelik bepaal word. Waar iemand beseer word en sy verdienvermoë as gevolg daarvan vernietig of verminder word, is die posisie nie dieselfde nie. Al word iemand se verdienvermoë as 'n saak, of 'n bate, in sy boedel beskou, is die skade wat B deur die vernietiging daarvan ontstaan nie op die dag van die delik voltooi en bepaalbaar soos in die geval van 'n motorkar wat vernietig of beskadig is nie. 'n Mens het in so 'n geval te doen met skade wat na die dag waarop die delik gepleeg is, dws in die toekoms in, bly voortduur. Dieselfde oorwegings geld waar skade weens die dood van 'n broodwinner ontstaan. Dit is derhalwe nie verkeerd om vergoeding vir skade wat tussen die datum van die delik en die datum van die verhoor gely word, onverminderd toe te laat nie, dws sonder dat dit tot op die datum van die delik verdiskonteer word. Vergoeding vir verlies C van verdienvermoë en verlies van onderhoud wat op daardie basis toegeken word, bring nie 'n onbehoorlike voordeel vir die eiser of 'n nadeel vir die verweerder mee nie.
Die Hof het derhalwe die beslissings van die Verhoorhowe bevestig dat skadevergoeding vir verlies van verdienvermoë en onderhoud gely, eerstens, tussen die datum van die delik en die datum van verhoor en, tweedens, vir sodanige verlies na die datum van verhoor gely, bereken soos op die datum van verhoor en dat dit nie tot op die datum van die delik verdiskonteer D moes word nie. Sodanige verlies wat na die datum van verhoor gely is, is tot op die datum van verhoor verdiskonteer.
Die beslissing van die Verhoorhof in die Carstens NO geval dat die datum van verdiskontering vir skadevergoeding vir beraamde toekomstige mediese onkoste die datum van verhoor is, en nie die datum van die delik nie, is ook deur die Hof op appèl bevestig.
Die beslissing van die Verhoorhof in die Carstens NO geval dat E die betoog dat die eiser se skadevergoeding vir verlies van verdienvermoë verminder moes word deur die gekapitaliseerde bedrag van die besparing wat die gevolg sou wees van die waarskynlikheid dat die eiser as gevolg van sy beserings nie sou trou en kinders hê nie, verwerp moes word en dat hierdie faktore in ag geneem sou word wanneer 'n aftrekking vir algemene gebeurlikhede gemaak word, is deur die Hof op appèl bevestig.
F Semble: As 'n besering iemand se verdienvermoë vernietig en hy as gevolg daarvan R50 000 verloor wat hy sou verdien het indien hy nie beseer is nie, dan beloop sy skade R50 000, of hy daarna trou of nie.
Dicta in Reid v South African Railways and Harbours 1965 (2) SA 181 (D) op 190F - H betwyfel.
Die beslissing in die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling in Summers v General Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd 1985 (3) SA 418 bevestig.
G Die beslissing in die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling in Carstens NO v Southern Insurance Association Ltd 1985 (3) SA 1010 bevestig.
Die beslissing in die Durban en Kus Plaaslike Afdeling in Nhlumayo v General Accident Insurance Co of SA Ltd 1986 (3) SA 859 bevestig.
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde
Negligence — Action for damages — For bodily injuries H — Loss of earning capacity — Date as at which damages to be calculated and date of discounting — In awarding damages, Court to try and assess an amount which is fair to plaintitf and defendant — No authority for proposition that loss of income (eaming capacity) should always, or necessarily, be assessed as at the date of the delict — Damages for loss of earning capacity not completed on the date of the delict and cannot be assessed as in the case of a corporeal thing — Therefore not wrong to award compensation for loss between the I date of the delict and the date of trial in an unreduced amount, ie without discounting it to the date of delict — Decisions of trial Courts that damages for loss suffered after the date of trial to be discounted to date of trial and not to date of delict confirmed.
Negligence — Action for damages — For bodily injuries — Loss of earning capacity — Probable result of injuries being that plaintiff would not marry and have children — Contention by defendant that plaintiffs damages to be reduced by J capitalised amount of consequent savings rejected — Decision of trial Court that these factors
1987 (3) SA p579
were to be taken into account when a deduction for general A contingencies was made — Semble: if an injury destroys a person's earning capacity and he suffers a loss of R50 000 as a result thereof, his damages amount to R50 000 whether or not he marries thereafter.
Headnote : Kopnota
It has often been emphasized in decisions of our Courts that a court, in awarding damages, should try to assess an amount which is fair to the plaintiff and to the defendant and, further, that, in the assessment of the amount in question, a B court is not obliged to follow one or another method of calculation. There is no authority stating that compensation for loss of earnings (loss of earning capacity) should always, or necessarily, be assessed as on the date of the delict. The same applies in regard to compensation for loss of support.
It probably sounds logical to say that, as the cause of action of a victim of a delict arises on the date of the delict, compensation for the loss which he has suffered should be assessed as on that date. That is, however, not necessarily, or C in all circumstances, a correct proposition and it should especially not be accepted that, because damage to a thing such as a motor car should be assessed as on the date of the delict, compensation for loss of earning capacity or support should necessarily also be assessed as on the date of the delict. The two cases are not the same. When an object such as a motor car is damaged or destroyed, the damage or the destruction is usually completed immediately and the extent of the plaintiff's D damages can immediately be assessed. Where someone is injured and, as a result thereof, his earning capacity is damaged or destroyed, the position is not the same. Even though a person's earning capacity is regarded as a res, or an asset, in his estate, the damage resulting from the destruction thereof is not completed and determinable on the date of the delict as in the case of a motor car which has been damaged or destroyed. In such a case one has to do with damages continuing after the date upon which the delict was committed, ie in the future. The E same considerations apply to damages arising from the death of a breadwinner. It is accordingly not incorrect to award compensation for damage arising between the date of the delict and the date of trial in an unreduced amount, ie without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Hartley
...Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo 1987 (3) SA 577 (A). As to the concept of interest on damages, see Victoria Falls & Transvaal E Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd 1915 AD 1 at 31 ......
-
Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop and Another
...Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern B Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) Holland v Yates Building Co Ltd The Times December 5, 1989 Re Hurst [1892] 67 LT 96 (CA) International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990......
-
Ngubane v South African Transport Services
...v Southern Insurance H Association Ltd 1985 (3) SA 1010 (C) at 1023D - F, approved in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Carstens NO 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) at 616J - 617A. The appellant's witnesses conceded that the medical expenses and adaptive aids could be obtained from provincial hospita......
-
General Accident Versekeringsmaatskappy SA Bpk v Uijs NO
...I04G-H; Southern InsuranceAssociationLtdvBaileyNO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) op 116G-117A; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) op 618B-E; Vorster and Another v AA Mutual Association Ltd 1982 (1) SA 145 (T) op 148G, I65C; Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590......
-
SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Hartley
...Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo 1987 (3) SA 577 (A). As to the concept of interest on damages, see Victoria Falls & Transvaal E Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd 1915 AD 1 at 31 ......
-
Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop and Another
...Insurance Co SA Ltd v Summers; Southern B Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO; General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v Nhlumayo 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) Holland v Yates Building Co Ltd The Times December 5, 1989 Re Hurst [1892] 67 LT 96 (CA) International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990......
-
Ngubane v South African Transport Services
...v Southern Insurance H Association Ltd 1985 (3) SA 1010 (C) at 1023D - F, approved in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Carstens NO 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) at 616J - 617A. The appellant's witnesses conceded that the medical expenses and adaptive aids could be obtained from provincial hospita......
-
General Accident Versekeringsmaatskappy SA Bpk v Uijs NO
...I04G-H; Southern InsuranceAssociationLtdvBaileyNO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) op 116G-117A; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens NO 1987 (3) SA 577 (A) op 618B-E; Vorster and Another v AA Mutual Association Ltd 1982 (1) SA 145 (T) op 148G, I65C; Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590......