RS v Road Accident Fund (49899/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC (21 January 2020)
Author | F.H.H. Kehrhahn |
DOI | 10.17159/2225-7160/2020/v53a13 |
Date | 01 June 2020 |
Pages | 188-193 |
Published date | 01 June 2020 |
188 2020 De Jure Law Journal
Recent case law
RS v Road Accident Fund
(49899/17) [2020]
ZAGPPHC
(21 January 2020)
Third party claim- Eleventh hour rejection of seriousness of injury- Not to follow the
appeal process in terms of Regulation 3
1Introduction
In this case the plaintiff, Salig, claimed damages from the defendant, the
RAF, for the harm that it had suffered arising from the negligent driving
of a motor vehicle by the insured driver. The defendant accepted liability
in respect of all of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, but the quantum
pertaining to loss of income and general damages remained in dispute.
This case note concerns solely the part of the judgment that dealt with
general damages.
2 Applicable law
General (or ‘non-patrimonial’) damages is a reduction in a legal subject’s
quality of highly personal interests that does not change his/her
economic position [Visser & Potgieter Skadevergoedingsreg (2003) 97;
Edouard v Administrator Natal 1989 (2) SA 368 (D) at 386]. According to
Visser and Potgieter, personality interests includes a person’s physical
integrity, pain and suffering, emotional shock, disfigurement, a reduced
life expectancy and loss of life amenities, and because of the personal,
non-pecuniary and subjective nature of these interests, it is difficult to
quantify, yet it remains recoverable [Hendricks v President Insurance
105].
Prior to 1 August 2008, road accident victims (or third parties) could
claim general damages from the Road Accident Fund (hereinafter ‘the
Fund’ or ‘RAF’) without any limitations:[see Road Accident Fund v Duma,
Road Accident Fund v Kubeka, Road Accident Fund v Meyer, Road Accident
Fund v Mokoena 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA) para 3]. On 1 August 2008 the Road
Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005 took effect, thereby
amending section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, by
introducing limitations on the Fund’s liability for general damages. The
‘obligation of the Fund to compensate a third party for non-pecuniary loss
shall be limited to compensation for a serious injury as contemplated in
subsection (1A) and shall be paid by way of a lump sum.’ [see Section
How to cite: Kehrhahn ‘RS v Road Accident Fund (49899/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC (21 January 2020)’
De Jure Law Journal 188-193
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2020/v53a13
To continue reading
Request your trial