Authored By: Lungaka Zizonke Ngewu
EUDVOS
- Case Title & Citation
Prince v Road Accident Fund
(CA143/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 20 (20 March 2018)
- Court Name & Bench
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown Division
Judges: Lowe J (delivering judgment), Van Zyl DJP, and Jaji J (both concurring)
Bench Type: Full Bench (appeal court)
- Date of Judgment
Date Heard:12 February 2018
Date Delivered:20 March 2018
- Parties Involved
Appellant: Angelique Prince (37-year-old married woman with two children, hospital admissions clerk who sustained serious injuries in motor vehicle collision)
Respondent: Road Accident Fund (South African statutory body responsible for compensating road accident victims)
- Facts of the Case
On 4 June 2010, the Appellant sustained serious bodily injuries when she was struck by a minibus taxi while crossing the street. She suffered a compound fracture of her left tibia, rib fractures, and abrasions. Following an open reduction and internal fixation, she developed a persistent multidrug-resistant wound infection and non-union of the fracture, requiring multiple surgical procedures over four years.
On 19 June 2015, the court declared the Road Accident Fund liable for 80% of the Plaintiff’s damages by agreement between parties, which settled claims for general damages, past and future medical expenses, and included an interim payment for past loss of earnings up to that date.
At the time of the accident, the Appellant was temporarily employed as an admissions clerk at St George’s Hospital. By 2014, she had secured permanent employment as an admissions clerk at Mercantile Hospital, working day and night shifts including casualty department duties, which caused her significant psychological distress.
- Issues Raised
– Whether the Appellant had suffered a loss of earning capacity due to psychiatric and psychological impairments resulting from the accident
– Assessment and quantification of past loss of earnings from 19 June 2015 to date of trial
– Assessment and quantification of future loss of earnings or earning capacity
– Evaluation of expert medical and industrial psychology evidence
– Application of the balance of probabilities test to speculative future loss claims
- Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments:
– Suffered severe psychiatric impairments (PTSD, panic disorder, general anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder) preventing continued hospital employment
– Current working environment aggravated psychiatric condition and was unsustainable
– Unable to work in casualty department due to panic attacks and anxiety
– Poor prognosis for recovery despite treatment
– Entitled to compensation for past loss of earnings from 19 June 2015 to trial and future loss of earning capacity
– Claimed R3,695,000 for estimated future loss of earnings
Respondent’s Arguments:
– Since Appellant was employed permanently at Mercantile Hospital, she had suffered no loss of earning capacity
– Any future loss could be met by lump-sum payment for periods of medical treatment
– Medical evidence only established that treatment was required, not that incapacity was inevitable
– Appellant had failed to establish specific date when she would be unable to continue employment
- Judgment / Final Decision
Appeal Allowed with Costs
The High Court set aside the trial court’s dismissal of the future loss of earnings claim and awarded: R60,120 for further past loss of earnings (after 10% contingency deduction). R2,045,412 for loss of earning capacity/future loss of earnings. Interest at 10.25% per annum from 14 days after judgment. Costs including expert witness fees
The trial judge had incorrectly dismissed the claim for future loss of earnings, and the appellate court found this approach to be in error.
- Ratio Decidendi
Key Legal Principles:
Evaluation of Probabilities in Civil Cases: The court emphasized that in civil trials, the party whose version appears more probable is entitled to judgment on a balance of probabilities. Sufficient proof is established when an inference can be drawn about the fact in issue, provided it is consistent with proven facts and is the most probable inference.
Assessment of Future Loss of Earnings: Once it is established that there is a loss of earning potential, courts cannot simply avoid the issue based on insufficient evidence. The court has a duty to make an award even if based on informed guesswork, following the principles in Bailey v Southern Insurance Co Ltd and Griffiths v Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Limited.
Treatment of Uncontested Expert Evidence: Where expert evidence is not seriously challenged and no contradictory evidence is presented, such evidence must be accepted and applied. The Respondent called no expert evidence to rebut the Appellant’s medical and industrial psychology experts.
Distinction Between Special and General Damages: Past loss of earnings constitutes special damages, while future loss of earnings/earning capacity constitutes general damages with different assessment approaches.
Prima Facie Proof: Once prima facie evidence is provided, it becomes conclusive if no evidence is produced to rebut it, though courts must review all evidence according to applicable criteria.
- Conclusion
This case establishes important precedents in South African personal injury law, particularly regarding:
Psychiatric Impairment Claims: The judgment demonstrates that psychiatric and psychological impairments resulting from physical trauma can establish valid claims for loss of earning capacity, even where the claimant remains employed at the time of trial.
Standard of Proof for Future Loss: Courts must assess future loss of earnings on probabilities rather than requiring certainty about specific dates of incapacity. The “guarded to poor” prognosis from uncontested medical experts was sufficient to establish the claim.
Approach to Expert Evidence: The case reinforces that courts should not ignore loss of earnings computations when they have proper evidential foundation, and uncontested expert evidence carries significant weight.
The case has been cited in subsequent Road Accident Fund litigation and represents a thorough application of established principles regarding the assessment of damages for psychiatric impairment affecting earning capacity. The judgment balances the speculative nature of future loss claims with the need to provide fair compensation based on probable outcomes supported by credible expert evidence.
