Nkoebele v Road Accident Fund

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Free State Division, Bloemfontein
• Judge: SG Meintjes AJ
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2019
• Citation: 2019 JDR 1841 (FB)
• Hearing Date: 12 June 2019
• Docket Number: 5449/2016

SG Meintjes AJ:

[1]

This case concerned the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, claiming damages for serious bodily injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 23 September 2014 at Aliwal Street,

2019 JDR 1841 p2

SG Meintjes AJ

Arboretum, Bloemfontein. Plaintiff was at the time of the accident 31 years old. Currently he is 36 years old.

[2]

It is to be noted that the merits were already settled between the parties. The defendant conceded to liability for all (100%) of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages he would prove to have suffered.

[3]

Defendant also promised to furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, Act 56 of 1996, for the costs of future accommodation of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home or treatment of or rendering of a service to him or supplying of goods to him arising out of the injury sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident on 23 September 2014, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.

[4]

The defendant also agreed to pay the amount of R 76 035.85 as claimed, for past hospital and medical expenses.

[5]

Defendant also agreed (at the last minute during arguments), to pay R 300 000.00 in settlement of plaintiff's claim for general damages.

[6]

The plaintiff has received an amount R 48 800.89 from the Workman's Compensation Commissioner.

2019 JDR 1841 p3

SG Meintjes AJ

[7]

The only outstanding issue then to be decided, is to determine the quantum of plaintiff's past and future loss of income or earning capacity.

[8]

In Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006(5) SA (SCA) on p586 para (8) [1] the court held: "It is trite that a person is entitled to be compensated to the extent that the person's patrimony has been diminished in consequence of another's negligence. Such damages include loss of future earning capacity…The calculation of the quantum of a future amount, such as loss of earning capacity, is not, as I have already indicated, a matter of exact mathematical calculation. By its nature, such an enquiry is speculative and a court can therefor only make an estimate of the present value of the loss that is a very rough estimate…The court necessarily exercises a wide discretion when it assesses the quantum of damages due to loss of earning capacity and has a large discretion to award what it considers right. Courts have adopted the approach that, in order to assist in such a calculation an actuarial computation is a useful basis for establishing the quantum of damages. Even then, the trial court has a wide discretion to award what it believes is just…"

[9]

No viva voce evidence was led in this matter. Expert reports by Dr. J.J. Schutte (General Practitioner), Dr. L.F. Oelofse and Dr. T.S. Bogatso (Orthopaedic Surgeons), Alana Stroebel and Success Moagi (Occupational Therapists), Dr. E. Jacobs and Dr.

2019 JDR 1841 p4

SG Meintjes AJ

M. Kheswa (Industrial Psychologists) and actuarial reports respectively complied by Munro Forensic Actuaries and NBC Holdings. A Joint Minute between Alana Stroebel and Success Moagi was also submitted.

[10]

The contents of all the medical reports relied upon by the plaintiff i.e the report by Dr. Schutte, both reports by Dr. Oelofse, both reports by Alana Stroebel, the report by Dr. Jacobs and the actuarial report of Munro Forensic Actuaries were not disputed by the defendant. The defendant however does not accept the contingency deductions therein suggested.

[11]

It followed clearly from the report of Dr. Schutte that plaintiff has a whole-person impairment (WPI) of 7%, however according to the narrative test, the plaintiff has a serious long-term impairment which could cause loss of body function. It is common cause between the parties that the injuries sustained by plaintiff are serious and that he consequently qualifies for compensation in respect of his claim for damages.

[12]

Dr. Oelofse stated in his report dated 9 October 2018 that plaintiff would have been able to work until the normal retirement age of 65 (sixty five) years, if not for the accident and his injury sustained. He will, after the accident, be able to work to the retirement age of 60 (sixty) years, if accommodated in a light duty/sedentary position. If not so accommodated, he must not be allowed to do physical labour again. Plaintiff's unfortunate condition, according to him, also deteriorated since his first consultation, because he has developed post-traumatic

2019 JDR 1841 p5

SG Meintjes AJ

osteoarthritis of the knee joint and he has a "probability" of 50% for...