Welcome to the twenty third edition of Independent Actuarial and Consultant’s (IAC’s) monthly newsletter.
WE PROVIDE LOSS OF INCOME AND LOSS OF SUPPORT CALCULATIONS TO ATTORNEYS DEALING WITH MVA & OTHER DAMAGES CLAIMS.
WE ALSO PROVIDE FREE TRAINING SEMINARS ON THE RAF AMENDMENT ACT TO ALL OUR VALUED CLIENTS.
If you send us instructions you are entitled to the same.
Via this newsletter we will keep you updated of all the latest case law relating to motor vehicle accidents, the quantification of damages relating to personal injury claims and dates and venues of training seminars.
LOUW and RAF, SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, CASE NO: 49084/09
The plaintiff in this matter, a 52 year old domestic worker, sustained injuries when the taxi she and her minor son was travelling in collided with another vehicle on 31 December 2008. The plaintiff’s son died on the scene.
The injuries suffered by the plaintiff were: a head injury with loss of consciousness for s short time, a contusion of the right shoulder and a severe contusion over the chin. These injuries left the Plaintiff unemployable in the informal sector. The plaintiff claimed for funeral expenses, loss of earning capacity and general damages in the amount of R 100 000.00. The defendant conceded the merits 100% on the day of the trial. The court had to decide on the issues of quantum and a special plea the defendant raised concerning non-compliance with the provisions of
the act on the part of the plaintiff. The court awarded the funeral costs and the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earning capacity and found that taking into account the plaintiff’s injuries, her pain and suffering, emotional shock at the death of her son an award of R 100 000 for general damages was justified.
As regards the defendants special plea it was contended that the plaintiff did not comply with regulation 3.
The plaintiff submitted her RAF 4 form, which stated that her injuries, although not resulting in a 30% whole body impairment, resulted in a serious long term impairment and a severe long term mental or behavioral disturbance as provided for by the narrative test, together with her claim form to the fund on the same day. The defendant then had 60 days to object to the validity of the claim i.t.o. Sec 24(5) of the act. The defendant did not object to the claim or to the RAF 4 form but contended that the 60 day period referred to in Sec 24(5) only related to the RAF 1 form and because they had as yet not responded to the RAF 4 form the plaintiff is precluded from claiming general damages.
The court rejected the defendant’s special plea on the basis that if it was upheld the defendant could simply frustrate every claim for general damages by simply not responding to it. Therefore it follows that the fund has to object to a plaintiff’s RAF 4 form within 60 days of receiving same failing which it is a valid claim.
Sending us an Instruction
Our dedicated full time professional team receive instructions by any of the following means:
• Email : firstname.lastname@example.org, or
• Post : PO Box 1172, Cape Town, 8000
• Fax : 086 616 8308
Now for some fun –
How does an attorney sleep?
First he lies on the one side and then on the other.
How do you get a group of lawyers to smile for a picture?
Just say “Fees”