Road Accident Fund v Madikane

The respondent, Sihle Madikane, was injured at age 12 in a motor vehicle collision on 10 July 2006. He sustained bodily injuries including lacerations and a splenic injury requiring a splenectomy. A claim was instituted against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Years later, Madikane alleged that he had also suffered a mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) resulting in delayed-onset neurocognitive deficits that impaired his academic performance and future earning capacity. His claim for loss of income relied exclusively on expert medical opinions, particularly neuropsychological and neurosurgical reports, without factual evidence from lay witnesses or proven medical records. The High Court accepted that he had suffered a more severe TBI and upheld his claim for loss of income. The RAF appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the respondent’s claim for loss of income with costs. The RAF was ordered only to furnish an undertaking under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical expenses.

This case is significant for reaffirming the South African law of evidence relating to expert testimony. It underscores that courts must critically assess expert opinions and ensure they are grounded in proven facts. The judgment is particularly important in Road Accident Fund litigation, where claims for future loss of earnings often depend heavily on expert medical evidence.