Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 189South Africa
J. F. S v Road Accident Fund (096870/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 189 (28 January 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
28 January 2025
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 189
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## J. F. S v Road Accident Fund (096870/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 189 (28 January 2025)
J. F. S v Road Accident Fund (096870/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 189 (28 January 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_189.html
sino date 28 January 2025
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 096870/2023
DATE
:
28-01-2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In
the matter between
J[…]
F[…] S[…]
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN,
AJ
:
This claim arose as a result of an
accident which occurred on the 19
th
of May 2019 and at
which stage the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle on his way to
a church service in Fochville.
The plaintiff alleged in his section
19(f) statutory affidavit that the driver of the vehicle in which he
was a passenger was driving
at an excessive speed, but that he fell
asleep and only woke up in the hospital.
The OAR indicates that the vehicle
left the road as a result of a burst tyre and refers to 12 people who
were injured in the accident,
and two who had passed on. I asked
counsel to address the Court on whether the burst tyre would not
constitute a sudden emergency.
In response counsel argued that it had
to have been pleaded and to the extent that it had not been pleaded,
it falls by the wayside.
The plaintiff requires 1% negligence
on the part of either the driver or owner of the vehicle to succeed
with his claim on liability
and that degree of negligence is clearly
present. The defendant is accordingly liable for a 100% of such
damages as the plaintiff
may be able to substantiate.
Before presenting the plaintiff’s
case on liability there were two applications. The first application
was in terms of Rule
38(2), which application was granted. The second
application was in terms of Rule 33(4). This was to separate the
aspect of general
damages and to postpone same
sine die.
This
application was also granted.
The plaintiff, according to the
particulars of claim, sustained a moderate brain injury with a
depressed skull fracture, soft tissue
injuries to the spine and
multiple abrasions and lacerations. The difficulty here was that this
moderate brain injury was supra
imposed on a brain that had already
been struggling to keep pace with the demands made on it. This is
clear from the number of
years that the plaintiff repeated grades in
school prior to the accident.
Given the plaintiff’s apparent
modest pre – accident intellectual ability, I have difficulty
to accept the expert statement
that, had the accident not occurred,
the plaintiff would have been able to successfully complete Grade 12.
I do not think that
the available facts, which predate the accident,
support the opinion that the plaintiff would have been able to
achieve a Grade
12 qualification pre - accident.
The basis on which loss of income was
calculated is set out in the report of the industrial psychologist,
Mr Peverett. Mr Peverett
give his opinion on what the plaintiff would
have been able to do with a Grade 12 level of education but for the
accident. This
includes employment in the non-corporate sector on an
income basis as per StatsSA. The ‘having regard to the
accident’
income is given as zero.
The uncertainties about the
plaintiff’s ability to progress academically pre - accident,
combined with the sector within which
he would have had to compete
for employment, had the accident not occurred and in particular the
high levels of known unemployment
in those sectors, suggest that a
high contingency deduction should be made from the actuarially
calculated
figure which is premised on
the opinion that the plaintiff would have achieved Grade 12, but for
the accident.
As far as past loss of income is
concerned, the court has no quarrel with the sum of R10 500 as
calculated. As far as future
loss of income or impairment of earning
capacity is concerned, the actuarial calculated figure of R2 344 700,
is accepted only
for the basis of the calculation. From this amount a
50 percent contingency is deducted, leaving a net amount of R1
172 350
which is a reasonable reflection of plaintiff’s
earnings, but for the accident – and accepting that he is now
unemployable.
To summarise: I order that:
1.
The
plaintiff’s application in terms of section 38(2) is granted.
2.
The
plaintiff’s application in terms of rule 33(4) to separate out
the claim for general damages and postpone same
sine
die
is granted.
3.
The
defendant is liable for 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may be
able to substantiate.
4.
The
defendant is liable to provide the plaintiff with an Undertaking in
terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act
for 100% of
all such future hospital, medical and ancillary expenses that the
plaintiff may incur as a result of injuries sustained
in the
accident.
5.
The
defendant shall pay the plaintiff in respect of past loss of earnings
the sum of R10 500.
6.
The
defendant shall pay the plaintiff in respect of the claim of future
loss of earnings the sum of R1 172 350.
7.
The
defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s party-and-pay costs as
taxed or agreed. All costs subject to the discretion of the
taxing
master and counsel’s fees to be on Scale B.
WEIDEMAN, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
J. F. S. v Road Accident Fund (096870/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 188 (28 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 188High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
J.W. v J.D. and Others (039454/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 731 (24 July 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 731High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
J.J.O.S v C.E.S (2019/38649) [2025] ZAGPJHC 224 (28 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 224High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
J.R. v S (A23/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 434 (2 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 434High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
S.R. v S.T.M. (2022/048303) [2025] ZAGPJHC 691 (15 July 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 691High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar