Van Gool NO v Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Klerk J
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division
• Citation: 1992 (1) SA 191 (W)
• Hearing Date: 30 April 1991

De Klerk J:

On 7 February 1986 Catherine Van Gool was injured when a vehicle insured by the defendant ran over her - Catherine is still a minor. The plaintiff, in his capacity as Catherine's father and natural F guardian, now, in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972, claims damages suffered by Catherine because of the collision. The claim is therefore Catherine's. The plaintiff acts on her behalf as her guardian.

The defendant has conceded the merits of the matter but disputes the assessment of damages put forward by plaintiff.

Catherine has no assets or income and cannot maintain herself. The G plaintiff, as her father, has a duty to support her and he is able to do so. The injuries suffered by Catherine will require future medical treatment. Plaintiff is obliged to, as stated already, and is able to provide the treatment in the execution of his duty to maintain Catherine.

In the claim before me Catherine, assisted by the plaintiff, claims in H respect of anticipated future medical expenditure. A substantial portion of the expenses will be incurred before Catherine reaches majority, or before she is anticipated to become self-supporting.

Against this claim the defendant has raised a special plea. The defendant contends that plaintiff in his personal capacity owes Catherine a duty of support until she becomes self-supporting, and that I therefore Catherine, or for that matter the plaintiff in his capacity as father and natural guardian, has not suffered any damage in respect of future medical expenses. Defendant contends that plaintiff in his personal capacity has suffered the loss we are concerned with, as a consequence of his duty to support Catherine, and therefore his duty to Catherine to pay the future medical expenses until she becomes J self-supporting.

De Klerk J

A Only the special plea is to be decided now. The parties have agreed that the other issues are to be resolved later.

Our law lays down that when a wrong is committed to a person that person is entitled, against the wrongdoer, to be put into the same position as far as money can do as if the delict had not been committed. Where a wrongful physical injury is sustained the injured person is B entitled to have the injury attended to, and the person who inflicted the injury is responsible to the injured person for the costs thereof. The injured person has the right against the wrongdoer, and the wrongdoer has the obligation towards the injured person.

Defendant's response to this statement of the basic rule can be summed C up as follows:

It is conceded that Catherine's claim for general damages is her own. However, although a minor in the position of Catherine may need the medicine the minor is not entitled to the money to pay for the medicine. The minor may have sustained a wound but she did not suffer damage in the form of money to buy the medicine with. That loss was suffered by D her father, ie the person obliged to maintain her and who is thus obliged to pay for the...