Ramolobeng v Lowveld Bus Services (Pty) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | SK Hassim AJ |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | 29836/09 |
| Hearing Date | 04 September 2014 |
| Court | Gauteng Division, Pretoria |
Hassim AJ:
On 5 October 2006 a bus driven by the second plaintiff in the course and within the scope of his employment with the first defendant, was involved in a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, a young man then aged 34, was a passenger thereon. The Road Accident Fund compensated the plaintiff to the extent of its statutory liability. The plaintiff now seeks from the defendants under the common law, compensation for injuries suffered by him in the collision.
The plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings as well as that for future medical expenses have been settled. The only outstanding issue is the quantum of general damages payable to the plaintiff.
The parties decided not to lead viva voce evidence but rather to present the case as what counsel referred to as an "informal stated case". The contents of the medical reports of the respective parties various expert witnesses were largely common cause. Counsel, assured me that the facts in those portions of the reports referred to in argument were indeed common cause. In addition to the facts and findings in numerous reports by expert witnesses the parties also relied on the hospital records of the plaintiff's hospitalisation (which I was informed were also common cause) as well as the joint minutes prepared by the respective parties various expert witnesses. I have had regard to all of these documents in determining the dispute.
The plaintiff was transported from the scene of the collision to Ellisras hospital by ambulance (he was later transferred to Polokwane Provincial Hospital). When admitted he was fully conscious. The plaintiff suffered injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine and a head injury with concussion.
The length of this first period of hospitalisation is not clear from the records. The parties agree though that the total length of hospitalisation for the treatment of his injuries was substantial. It was accepted as roughly six months in total.
2015 JDR 0190 p3
Hassim AJ
After the first period of hospitalisation (i.e. that immediately following the collision) the plaintiff was admitted for a second time to the Ellisras hospital and was transferred from there to Polokwane Provincial Hospital on 6 July 2007. He complained that he had been unable to lift the left side of his body since 3 July 2007, was experiencing back pain and tenderness in lumbar area. He also complained of erectile dysfunction.
An MRI scan showed a L4/L5 inter-vertebral disc protrusion with compression of the left L4 nerve root, a L5/S1 intervertebral posterior disc bulge with impression on the left and right nerve roots of L5, a thoracic spine intervertebral disc bulge at T5/T6 with a thecal sac compression at that level and spinal cord impression.
On 2 August 2007 he was transferred from the Polokwane Provincial Hospital to the George Mukhari Hospital. At George Mukhari Hospital he underwent spinal surgery; an artificial disc was inserted at the levels L3 L4. Whether this was during September 2007 or September 2008 is not entirely clear from the records. After being discharged from hospital he was treated as an out-patient at Mokopani Hospital.
The plaintiff was initially treated conservatively- analgesics, physiotherapy and rest. Much later he underwent the disc replacement surgery. There exists a probability of future surgical interventions. These will require approximately five days hospitalisation.
As a consequence of his injuries the plaintiff suffered acute pain between one to two weeks following the collision. Post operatively he experienced severe acute pains for a period of fifteen days. He continues to experience chronic moderate to severe cervical spine...
To continue reading
Request your trial