Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund 2006 (4) SA 230 (CC)

 Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund 2006 (4) SA 230 (CC)

Facts

Ms. Van der Merwe was a passenger in a car that was involved in a road accident. The accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the other car. Ms. Van der Merwe was seriously injured in the accident. She suffered a number of broken bones and internal injuries. She also suffered psychological trauma.

Ms. Van der Merwe sued the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages. The RAF denied liability on the grounds that Ms. Van der Merwe was married in community of property to the driver of the car in which she was travelling. Under South African law, spouses married in community of property are jointly and severally liable for each other's delicts. The RAF argued that this meant that Ms. Van der Merwe was liable for the negligence of her husband and that she could therefore not claim damages from the RAF.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Ms. Van der Merwe could claim damages from the RAF for the injuries she had suffered in the road accident, even though she was married in community of property to the driver of the car in which she was travelling.

Reasons

The Constitutional Court held that Ms. Van der Merwe could claim damages from the RAF for the injuries she had suffered in the road accident. The court reasoned that the common law rule that spouses married in community of property are jointly and severally liable for each other's delicts is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The court held that the rule violates the right to equality and the right to dignity, which are enshrined in the South African Constitution.

The court also held that the RAF Act, which governs the compensation of road accident victims, should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution. The court held that the RAF Act does not exclude spouses married in community of property from claiming damages for injuries suffered in road accidents.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court allowed Ms. Van der Merwe's appeal and held that she could claim damages from the RAF for the injuries she had suffered in the road accident. The court ordered the RAF to pay Ms. Van der Merwe damages for her medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

Summary

The case of Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the Constitutional Court has considered the constitutionality of the common law rule that spouses married in community of property are jointly and severally liable for each other's delicts.

The Constitutional Court's decision in Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund is based on the following principles:

• The common law rule that spouses married in community of property are jointly and severally liable for each other's delicts is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
• The rule violates the right to equality and the right to dignity, which are enshrined in the South African Constitution.
• The RAF Act should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.
• The RAF Act does not exclude spouses married in community of property from claiming damages for injuries suffered in road accidents.

The Constitutional Court's decision in Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund has a number of implications. First, it means that spouses married in community of property can now claim damages from the RAF for injuries suffered in road accidents, even if the driver of the car in which they were travelling was their husband or wife. Second, the decision means that the RAF will now need to pay out more money in damages. Third, the decision means that the common law rule that spouses married in community of property are jointly and severally liable for each other's delicts is likely to be abolished in the future.

The decision has been welcomed by some commentators, who argue that it is a victory for women's rights and that it will help to ensure that women are not penalized financially for the negligence of their husbands. However, other commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will place an undue burden on the RAF and that it will lead to an increase in litigation.