Road Accident Fund v Marunga

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal
• Judge: Marais JA, Navsa JA and Heher AJA
• Judgment Date: 26 March 2003
• Citation: 2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA)
• Hearing Date: 11 March 2003
• Docket Number: 144/2002
• Counsel: S J Renke for the appellant. Shakoane for the respondent.

Road Accident Fund v Marunga
2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA)

2003 (5) SA p164

Citation	2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA)
Case No	144/2002
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Marais JA, Navsa JA and Heher AJA
Heard	March 11, 2003
Judgment	March 26, 2003
Counsel	S J Renke for the appellant.; Shakoane for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde F

Damages — Measure of — For personal injuries — General damages — Interference by Appeal Court — Appeal Court G interfering with award of general damages where striking disparity existing between trial H court's award and award appeal Court considers appropriate — Trial court required to provide reasoned basis for its conclusions — No general rule that trial court obliged to consider past awards, although general pattern of past awards possibly of assistance — In instant case, trial Court providing inadequate reasons for its conclusions and striking disparity existing between trial Court's award and award considered I appropriate by appeal Court — Latter Court reducing award accordingly.

Headnote : Kopnota

In an appeal against an order of the High Court in terms of which the appellant had been ordered to pay the respondent an amount of R375 000 as general damages (subject to a 60% reduction by apportionment) flowing from J

2003 (5) SA p165

bodily injuries sustained by the respondent in a collision between a motor vehicle which was being A driven by an insured driver and the respondent's bicycle the only issue on appeal was that of quantum.

Held, that in cases in which the question of general damages arose a trial Court had a wide discretion to award what it considered to be fair and adequate compensation to the injured party. The appeal Court would interfere where there was a striking disparity between what the trial Court awarded and what the appeal Court considered ought to have been awarded. (Paragraph [23] at 169E/F - F/G.) B

Held, further, that, there was no hard and fast rule of general application requiring a trial court to consider past awards, although the court might derive some assistance from the general pattern of previous awards. (Paragraphs [24] and [25] at 169G - I.)

Held, further, that, as a general rule, a court which delivered a final judgment was obliged to give reasons for its C decisions. In civil cases, this was not a statutory rule but one of practice. (Paragraph [31] at 171F - F/G.)

Held, further, that this was not a case in which no attempt had been made to provide reasons for judgment. It was a case in which the attempt had been inadequate. A trial court, in determining an award D of general damages, should, at the very least, state the factors and circumstances it considered important in the assessment of damages. It should provide a reasoned basis for arriving at its conclusions. The Court below had not set out adequate motivation for the amount determined as damages. (Paragraph [33] at 172C - D/E.)

Held, further, that, having considered all the factors and circumstances relevant to the assessment of damages and considering E past awards and taking into account the modern tendency to award a higher quantum of damages than in the past, the Court considered an amount of R175 000 to be an appropriate award of damages. (Paragraph [34] at 172E - F.) Appeal allowed.

The order in the Venda High Court in Marunga v Road Accident Fund varied.

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases F

Botes and Another v Nedbank Ltd 1983 (3) SA 27 (A): referred to

Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A): dictum at 535B applied

Wright v Multilateral Vehicle Accident Fund Corbett and Honey The Quantum of Damages in Bodily and Fatal Injury Cases vol 4 at E3 - 31 (N): considered and compared. G

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Venda High Court (Hetisani J). The facts appear from the judgment of Navsa JA.

S J Renke for the appellant.

G Shakoane for the respondent. H

Cur adv vult.

Postea (March 26).

Judgment

Navsa JA: I

[1] This is an appeal, with the leave of this Court, against an order of the Venda High Court (Hetisani J) on 6 September 2001, in terms of which the appellant (the RAF), a statutory insurer established and constituted by the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, was required to pay the respondent an amount of R375 000 as general damages (subject to a J

2003 (5) SA p166

Navsa JA

60% reduction by apportionment) flowing from bodily injuries sustained by the respondent in a collision on A 8 April 1993 at Cherenzeni in Venda between a motor vehicle driven by an insured driver and the respondent's bicycle. The Court below made no order in respect of costs.

[2] The Court below was called upon to determine only the quantum of damages suffered by the respondent, including B loss of income and medical expenses. The only issue before us is the correctness of the determination of the amount of R375 000 as general damages.

[3] The RAF contends that the amount awarded as general damages by the Court below is excessive and that whatever the result of the injuries the amount of damages awarded cannot be justified by reference to comparable decided cases or on any other basis. C

[4] The respondent contends that the features of the present case are exceptional and distinctive and that the amount awarded as general damages by the Court below is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. D

[5] In order to decide the present appeal the following deserve consideration:

(a)

the physical injuries sustained by the respondent and their consequences;

(b)

the treatment received by the respondent and his experiences flowing from the injuries and their consequences; E

(c)

evidence by the two orthopaedic surgeons who examined the respondent including their prognoses in respect of the injury to the respondent's left leg;

(d)

the judgment in the Court below. F

[6] It is common cause that as a result of the collision the respondent sustained the following injuries:

(i)

a fracture of the left femur;

(ii)

a soft tissue injury in the chest area;

(iii)

bruises on the forehead, left arm and left knee. G

[7] It is common cause that the respondent received treatment, attended at hospitals and was subjected to surgical procedures as described in this and the following paragraph. On 9 April 1993, the day after the collision, the respondent was subjected to a surgical procedure in terms of which a plate and screws were inserted in his left leg in order to deal with the fracture of the left femur. He spent five months in hospital recuperating, H approximately two of which were spent with his left leg in traction and in plaster.

[8] After his discharge from hospital the respondent was compelled to use crutches as a walking aid for approximately five I months. During 1997 he was readmitted to hospital for the surgical removal of the plate and screws. As it turned out the plate had moved and caused a mal-union and angulation of the femur that resulted in a shortening of the respondent's left leg. The respondent spent two weeks in hospital after the plate and all but one of the screws were removed. He attended different hospitals at...