ER24 Holdings v Smith NO

Ms Romy Staracek was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on 10 August 2003 while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle driven by an ER24 employee who was negligent. At the time, Romy was a volunteer undergoing vocational training with ER24 to gain experience necessary to qualify as a paramedic. She was not paid and had signed an agreement stating she was not an employee and indemnifying ER24 against certain claims. Her curator ad litem sued ER24 for damages. ER24 raised special pleas contending that Romy was an ‘employee’ under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA), thereby barring a delictual claim, and alternatively that liability was excluded or should be rectified under contract.

The appeal was dismissed. ER24 was ordered to pay the costs of the curator ad litem and the Compensation Commissioner, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the meaning of remuneration ‘in kind’ under COIDA and confirms that unpaid volunteers or trainees who merely gain experience are not employees for purposes of the Act. It is an important authority on the limits of COIDA’s exclusivity and on the interpretation of exemption clauses in South African contract law.