Maxwell Ndebele v Road Accident Fund

The applicant (plaintiff), a minor at the time, was a pedestrian involved in a collision on 19 December 2019. He sustained a fracture of the right clavicle and multiple abrasions. The Road Accident Fund conceded liability on 13 April 2022. The original claim included past medical expenses (R5,000), future medical expenses (R50,000), future loss of income (R1,590,400), and general damages (R800,000). At the hearing, counsel abandoned the claims for past medical expenses and indicated that the minor did not qualify for general damages. The remaining heads of damage were future medical expenses and future loss of income.

• Whether the plaintiff qualified for a directly quantifiable claim for future loss of income based on expert evidence
• Whether the court could award a lump sum for impairment of future earning capacity in the absence of actuarially quantifiable evidence
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an undertaking for future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act

1. The plaintiff's application in terms of rule 38(2) was granted. 2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R500,000 in respect of impairment of earning capacity. 3. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future hospital, medical or ancillary expenses resulting from injuries sustained in the accident on 19 December 2019. 4. The plaintiff was awarded party and party costs as taxed or agreed, including the cost of medico-legal reports filed of record and counsel's fees on scale B.

A court has the discretion to award a lump sum for impairment of future earning capacity even in the absence of actuarially quantifiable evidence, where there is evidence that the sequelae of an injury may impede a plaintiff's ability to freely offer services in the employment market. Expert opinion regarding future loss of income must be based on a proper factual foundation with supporting evidence or literature; otherwise, the court is not bound to accept such opinion. The value of expert opinion is directly linked to the factual foundation on which it is based.

The court observed that the absence of a quantifiable direct claim for future loss of income does not automatically mean there is no claim at all. The court noted its enquiry from counsel regarding evidence supporting the assumption that the plaintiff would work until age 67.5, receiving a negative response, demonstrating the importance of evidential foundations for actuarial calculations.

This case demonstrates the court's discretion to award a lump sum for impairment of future earning capacity in circumstances where actuarial quantification is not possible or appropriate. It illustrates the principle that while expert opinions are valuable, they must be based on proper factual foundations and supporting evidence. The judgment reinforces that courts are not bound by expert opinions when the underlying assumptions lack evidential support. It also shows the court's pragmatic approach in recognizing that an injury may cause future economic loss even when precise calculation is impossible.