Authored By: Botlenyana Thabile Ntseo
University of South Africa
Introduction
In South African law, when someone suffers financial loss because of another person’s actions, the law usually looks at it in an objective way.1 This means the court considers what a reasonable person would expect to lose after the event. However, in some rare cases, the court may also look at the plaintiff’s personal situation to make the award fairer.2The case of Rudman v Road Accident Fund (2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA)) is an example where the court thought about whether the plaintiff’s personal circumstances should affect the amount of damages. This essay looks at how the court dealt with both objective and subjective approaches and gives a clear view on whether the judgment was fair.
Objective and Subjective Approaches to Patrimonial Loss
The objective approach calculates damages based on general expectations and what a reasonable person would normally lose because of the harmful event.3It does not look at the plaintiff’s personal situation, which makes the law more predictable and consistent. For example, when deciding on lost income, the court might use average salaries, typical career growth, and general job market conditions to estimate the loss. The subjective approach, on the other hand, considers the plaintiff’s individual circumstances. This includes their skills, career plans, lifestyle, and other personal factors. This method is less predictable, but it can make sure the damages awarded truly reflect the real impact on the person’s life.4In South African law, the objective approach is usually used, and subjective considerations are only applied in rare or exceptional cases.5
Case Overview: Rudman v Road Accident Fund
In Rudman v Road Accident Fund, Mr. Rudman was seriously injured in a car accident and claimed damages for lost income and reduced earning potential.6 The main legal question was whether the court should calculate his damages using the usual objective method, or whether his personal circumstances meant a subjective approach was more appropriate.7At first, the trial court used only the objective approach. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) looked at whether Rudman’s individual potential and specific career path should influence the calculation of his financial loss.8
The SCA decided that while the objective approach sets a standard and ensures predictability, the court can also consider the plaintiff’s unique circumstances if there is credible evidence to support it.9
The Court’s Approach to Subjective Damage
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) highlighted that South African law usually prefers an objective approach to keep awards fair and consistent.10 However, the court also recognized that in some cases, subjective factors can be considered if there is evidence showing that the plaintiff’s personal situation has a real impact on their loss.11In Rudman, the court allowed a limited subjective assessment, looking at the plaintiff’s career prospects, personal qualifications, and earning potential in specific areas.12 The SCA emphasized that any subjective considerations must be supported by evidence, so that compensation remains fair and reasonable.13Overall, the court used a combined approach, relying mainly on objective measures but including relevant subjective factors in special cases.14
Critical Discussion
The SCA’s approach in Rudman has both advantages and challenges: Fairness and Justice
Including subjective factors helps ensure that the damages awarded truly reflect how the injury affected the plaintiff’s life.15 For example, taking into account the plaintiff’s exceptional career potential means compensation is based on real losses rather than general averages.16
Consistency and Predictability
On the other hand, considering personal circumstances can make outcomes less consistent.17 Different courts might value the same personal factors differently, leading to variations in awards.18The objective approach helps avoid this by providing a standard method for calculating damages in most cases.19
Judicial Discretion
Using a combined approach gives judges more freedom to evaluate evidence and decide on damages 20while this allows for customized and fair outcomes, it can create uncertainty and make appeals harder if decisions seem inconsistent
Evidence Challenges
Subjective assessment depends on detailed evidence about the plaintiff’s skills, career, and earning potential.21 This evidence can be hard to get or may involve speculation, which makes the trial more complicated.22 Courts must carefully assess this evidence to avoid overcompensation or guesses about potential earnings.
Overall, the SCA tried to balance fairness with predictability, keeping the objective approach as the main guide while allowing subjective factors in exceptional cases.23
Conclusion
The Rudman case is an important example in South African law on how to calculate financial loss. By allowing some consideration of the plaintiff’s personal circumstances, the court made sure that damages reflected both general expectations and the individual’s real situation. Although this approach can make consistency harder and requires detailed evidence, it provides a fairer and more accurate assessment of loss. I agree with the judgment because it balances objective and subjective factors well. It keeps the law predictable while also making sure that special personal circumstances are properly considered, promoting fairness in delict law.
Reference(S):
1 Potgieter, J.M. Law of Damages (Juta, Cape Town 2012) 3rd Edition.
2 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA).
3 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 45–48.
4 Atlas, M. Court’s Approach to Subjective Damage (2003)
5 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 49.
6 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 236.
7 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 237
8 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 238
9 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 240
10 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 50.
11 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 241.
12 R Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 241.
13 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 242
14 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 51–52.
15 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 53
16 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 243.
17 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 243.
18 Atlas, M. (2003).
19 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 54.
20 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 244.
21 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 55.
22 Rudman v Road Accident Fund 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA) 245.
23 Potgieter, J.M. (2012) 56.
