South Africa: High Courts - Eastern Cape

You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: High Courts - Eastern Cape >> 2008 >> [2008] ZAECHC 131

| Noteup | LawCite

Nopulula v Road Accident Fund (623/08) [2008] ZAECHC 131 (7 August 2008)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

Bookmark/share this page

FORM A

FILING SHEET FOR SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISIONJUDGMENT

PARTIES: Sinethemba Nopulula v Road Accident Fund

Case Number: 623/08

High Court: GRAHAMSTOWN
DATE HEARD: 10/07/08

DATE DELIVERED: 07/08/08

JUDGE(S): Froneman

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES –

Appearances:

for the Applicant(s): Adv S Cole

for the Respondent(s):

Instructing attorneys:

for the Applicant(s): Wheeldons Rushmere & Cole

for the Respondent(s):

CASE INFORMATION –

Nature of proceedings.

Topic:

Key Words:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE DIVISION Case No. 623/08

In the matter between
SINETHEMBA NOPULULA Plaintiff
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Froneman J.

The only issue remaining in this matter is the issue of the quantum of plaintiff’s damages. The particulars of the plaintiff’s injuries and their sequelae are set out in Dr Olivier’s report, which he confirmed in his testimony. He also explained what was involved in hip replacement operations. I do not intend to burden this judgment, in an unopposed matter, with a repetition of the details of his report and testimony. The most important aspect of the fracture of the femur and the dislocation of the hip joint is that it will lead to osteo-arthritis in the future which, in turn, will probably necessitate a primary hip replacement in about twenty years time, and a secondary hip replacement some fifteen years after that.

The plaintiff has claimed R130860.00 for future medical expenses and R180000.00 for general damages.

Although there has been no actuarial evidence it is abundantly clear that the claim for future medical expenses is very conservative and could have been substantially higher. For pragmatic reasons the plaintiff sought no amendment for an increase.

The amount claimed for general damages is also within the range awarded for similar injuries (compare Peter v Road Accident Fund, Case no 356/2002, Bhisho High Court).

Accordingly the following order is made:

Payment of the sum of R310860.00 as and for damages;

Interest thereon at the legal rate from 14 days of date of judgment to date of payment;

Costs of suit, together with interest on the taxed costs at the legal rate from allocatur to date of payment;

Costs are to include the qualifying expense of Dr Oliver.