Chinaz Septoo obo J M Septoo & M Septoo v The Road Accident Fund

The deceased was driving a motor vehicle with his wife (the appellant) and their minor child as passengers when he died in a single-vehicle accident. The deceased's negligence was the sole cause of the collision. The deceased was married to the appellant and was the father of both her minor child and her unborn child. In a separate action, the Road Accident Fund (the Fund) was declared liable for the appellant's and her minor child's general damages and future medical expenses. In this action, the appellant claimed damages for loss of support from the Fund.

• Whether dependants can claim compensation for loss of support from the Road Accident Fund where the deceased breadwinner was the sole cause of the collision
• Whether the common law should be developed to include such claims
• Whether the element of wrongfulness is established against the Fund in circumstances of a single-vehicle accident caused solely by the deceased's negligence
• Whether there is any constitutional or statutory basis for developing the common law to allow such claims

The appeal was dismissed. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs in the appeal.

The binding legal principle established in this case is that dependants cannot claim compensation for loss of support from the Road Accident Fund under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 where the deceased breadwinner was the sole cause of the collision resulting in his or her death. This is because: (1) All elements of delict, including wrongfulness, must be established for a claim under the Act to succeed. (2) The wrongfulness requirement in a dependant's action for loss of support requires that a third party unlawfully caused the death of the breadwinner; there can be no wrongfulness where the breadwinner caused his or her own death. (3) Section 19(a) of the Act expressly excludes the Fund's liability for loss or damage for which neither the driver nor the owner of the motor vehicle would have been liable at common law. (4) The common law does not recognize a cause of action for dependants against the estate of a breadwinner who caused his own death, and this principle is codified in the Act. (5) Dependants in such circumstances have a remedy against the estate of the deceased, not against the Fund.

The Court made several obiter observations: (1) The Court noted that it had been informed there were a number of similar claims in the pipeline and that the present matter was in the nature of a test case, which influenced the costs decision. (2) The Court observed that the Fund had created uncertainty by settling similar claims in the past while rejecting others. (3) The Court reaffirmed the warning in Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security that judges should be mindful that the major engine for law reform should be the Legislature, not the Judiciary, and that the Judiciary should confine itself to incremental changes necessary to keep the common law aligned with society. (4) The Court noted that allowing a person to create a cause of action in favor of dependants by his own intentional wrongful act would be "nothing short of preposterous" and a "dangerous proposition," consistent with the principle that a person should not benefit from his or her own wrongful act. (5) The Court commented that the purpose of motor vehicle insurance legislation is to remedy the evil that members of the public injured through negligent driving, or their dependants, may find themselves without redress if the wrongdoer is without means and uninsured. (6) The Court observed that private litigants should not be discouraged from approaching courts on issues affecting the general public for fear of being mulcted with costs.

This case is significant in South African law because: (1) It definitively clarifies that the Road Accident Fund is not liable for loss of support claims where the deceased breadwinner was the sole cause of the accident. (2) It reaffirms that the essential elements of delict, particularly wrongfulness, cannot be bypassed in claims against the Fund. (3) It settles uncertainty created by inconsistent treatment of such claims by the Fund, which had previously settled similar claims in some instances and rejected them in others. (4) It confirms that the common law principles governing dependants' actions for loss of support remain unchanged in the constitutional dispensation. (5) It reinforces the principle that the legislature, not the judiciary, should be the major engine for law reform, with courts confining themselves to incremental changes necessary to keep the common law aligned with society. (6) It clarifies the proper interpretation and interaction of sections 17, 19, and 21 of the Road Accident Fund Act. (7) It demonstrates the proper approach to costs where matters raise issues of broad public concern and serve as test cases, even where the litigant is unsuccessful.