A young woman whose dream of becoming a teacher was destroyed after she was hit by a taxi in a hit-and-run crash has been awarded nearly R4.8m by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for her future loss of earnings.
The Western Cape High Court ruled that the RAF must pay R4,763,719 to the woman, who was only 16 years old when she was knocked down while walking on a pavement in Gugulethu in March 2020.
Acting judge Fareed Moosa found that the crash left the teenager with serious injuries that changed the course of her life and career.
The woman suffered facial injuries that left a scar on her forehead and fractures to her right leg, which resulted in permanent disfigurement.
Before the accident, she had hoped to study teaching. But medical experts agreed that because of the injuries she suffered, including physical and cognitive problems, she would no longer be able to work as a teacher. Instead she would only be able to do lighter office-based work with training and support.
The RAF had already accepted full responsibility for the accident and previously agreed to pay her R800,000 in general damages. The only issue left before the court was how much she should receive for her future loss of earnings.
A conservative approach should be followed when awarding damages for future losses
— Acting judge Fareed Moosa
The woman’s legal team argued that she should receive just more than R6m, based on calculations prepared by her actuary. However, the RAF said the amount was too high and relied on calculations prepared by its own in-house actuary.
Moosa rejected the higher claim after finding that the plaintiff’s actuarial calculations were not reliable enough. The judge said the plaintiff’s actuary made incorrect assumptions when calculating the amount and failed to properly justify some of his figures.
“I conclude that Mr Wim Loots’ use of Paterson level A1 was incorrect. That use led to an error in the calculation of the future loss of earnings,” he said.
The court instead accepted the calculations of the RAF’s actuary, Albert Makasi, despite arguments that he should not be treated as an expert because he works for the RAF.
Moosa rejected that argument. “I am unpersuaded that Mr Makasi’s position as employee on the RAF’s payroll disqualifies him from testifying as an expert,” he said.
The judge said there was no evidence that Makasi had acted in a biased manner simply because he was employed by the RAF. “After a review of his evidence, I am also unable to find any hint of bias.”
Moosa added that Makasi had been objective and had properly explained the reasons behind his calculations.
“I am satisfied that he complied with his duties as an expert ... He was forthright and confident, and he made concessions where it was reasonable to do so.”
The court also warned against awarding damages that are higher than what the evidence supports.
Moosa said future loss of earnings can never be calculated with absolute certainty because it involves predicting what might have happened if the accident had never occurred. He said courts should take a careful and conservative approach when making such awards.
“A conservative approach should be followed when awarding damages for future losses.”
He added that awarding more than what was justified would amount to “the undesirable pouring out of largesse at the expense of public funds from the perceived horn of plenty in the RAF’s coffers”.
After applying deductions for normal uncertainties in life, known as contingencies, the court calculated the woman’s future loss of earnings at R4,763,719.
The RAF has been ordered to pay the amount within 180 days of the judgment. If it fails to do so, interest will start running on the outstanding amount. It must also pay the woman’s legal costs, including the costs of expert witnesses.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.