Martail Abie Arends v Road Accident Fund

The plaintiff, a minor at the time, was injured as a pedestrian in a road accident on 31 May 2016. The plaintiff was on crutches at the time of the accident (reportedly due to a sprained ankle that morning, though conflicting information suggested an accident two months earlier). The plaintiff sustained injuries to the right leg, lacerations on the right leg, head injuries, and other serious injuries. The defendant (Road Accident Fund) accepted 100% liability for damages. The plaintiff claimed future medical expenses (undertaking), general damages of R850,000, and past and future loss of income of R3,749,734. At the commencement of the hearing, applications were granted under Rule 38(2) for separation of issues and Rule 33(4) to postpone assessment of general damages sine die.

• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an undertaking for future medical expenses under Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act
• The appropriate quantum for loss of income and/or impairment of earning capacity
• The appropriate contingency deductions to be applied to actuarial calculations of future income
• The assessment of the plaintiff's earning capacity both uninjured and post-accident

1. The application in terms of Rule 38(2) was granted. 2. The application in terms of Rule 33(4) separating general damages and postponing same sine die was granted. 3. The defendant accepted 100% liability for such damages as the plaintiff may substantiate. 4. The plaintiff was granted an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future hospital, medical and ancillary expenses arising from the accident of 31 May 2016. 5. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff R2,509,926 in respect of loss of income. 6. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's party and party costs as taxed or agreed, with counsel's fees on Scale B.

In assessing quantum for loss of income in Road Accident Fund claims, actuarial calculations must be based on substantiated facts rather than unsubstantiated expert opinions. Where actuarial projections contain unexplained transitions between different economic sectors (such as from non-corporate to Paterson scale corporate wages), and no factual basis is provided for such transitions, the court is entitled to adjust the calculations and apply appropriate contingency deductions to account for uncertainties. A contingency deduction can be applied uniformly to both the uninjured and injured income calculations where the reduced post-accident income figure already adequately compensates for all long-term sequelae of the injuries sustained.

The court expressed concern about the quality and consistency of medico-legal reports in the matter, noting that the plaintiff's prior medical history (being on crutches at the time of the accident) was disclosed to some experts but denied to others, depriving the court of accurate details about circumstances that could impact the claim. The court also noted conflicting information about whether the plaintiff sprained his ankle on the morning of the accident or had been in an accident approximately two months earlier. The court observed that these inconsistencies made the assessment of the claim "more problematic than what it should be."

This case illustrates the court's approach to assessing quantum in Road Accident Fund claims where there are inconsistencies and gaps in the medico-legal evidence. It demonstrates the court's willingness to critically scrutinize actuarial calculations, particularly unexplained transitions between different economic sectors in income projections. The case emphasizes the importance of complete and consistent disclosure of medical history to experts and the necessity for factual substantiation of income projections, particularly when moving from non-corporate to corporate sector wage scales. It also shows how courts apply contingency deductions to account for uncertainties and speculative elements in long-term income calculations.