Law of Damages - Factual Scenario 2018 Semester 1 (Delictual Damages)

A black Range Rover (with registration numbers and letters TMP 088 GP) transporting the Tshwane Mayor from Soshanguve township was speeding recklessly on the R80 highway between the Pretoria CBD and Wonderpark in Pretoria North. The driver of the black Range Rover, Simon Mapanga (a 32 year old driver of 11 Maunde Street Atteridgeville), was irritated by a slow moving vehicle in front of him and intentionally bumped the vehicle with the Range Rover from behind. Because of the speed at which Simon was driving and the size of his vehicle, the collision from behind caused Pieter van der Linde, the driver of the smaller and slower Toyota Tazz (with registration numbers and letters ZPV 377 GP), to lose control of his vehicle. The Toyota Tazz crashed into a concrete pillar of a bridge crossing the highway and as a result was damaged beyond repair.

After the accident the driver of the black Range Rover, Simon, pulled up next to the Toyota Tazz to see if the driver and passengers were okay. One of the bystanders at the scene of the accident, Sphelele Nkosi, saw how the accident happened recorded the entire incident with his cell phone. Simon was angered by Sphelele’s actions and demanded that he (Sphelele) hand over his cell phone to him (Simon) or face assault. When Sphelele refused to hand over his phone, Simon hit him with his fists in the face and grabbed Sphelele’s phone from him. Simon threw Siphele’s expensive iPhone X on the tar road under the passing motor vehicle. The phone was crushed beyond recognition while Sphelele had to be treated for facial injuries at the medi-clinic after this incident.

After the accident, the Van der Lindes were conveyed by ambulance to the Louis Pasteur Private Hospital. Pieter (a 55 year old electrician of unit 102 Wonderpark Estates, Pretoria), the driver of the Toyota Tazz, was unconscious after the accident and remained in a coma due to severe head injuries, which were partially aggravated by him not wearing a safety belt at the time of the accident. He eventually died 6 months after the accident without ever regaining consciousness. Magdel van der Linde (a 26 year old receptionist at the Tshwane City Council), Pieter’s pregnant wife, was a passenger in the Toyota Tazz and suffered a whiplash injury and a few minor scratches to the face. The trauma of the accident induced Magdel into early labour. Baby Jese was born with deformities and will need medical assistance for the rest of his life. Magdel was discharged from hospital after 30 days and baby Jese was treated in hospital for a further ten (10) weeks. 

Seventy five (75) year old grandfather John and his fifteen (15) year old grandchild Tess, Pieter’s daughter from a previous marriage, were sitting at the back seat of the Toyota Tazz. Grandfather John had back problems before the accident, but after the accident his back deteriorated to such an extent that he had to undergo an operation. The operation was not successful and he has now been confined to a wheelchair. Grandfather John spent 6 weeks in hospital. John had a safety belt on during the accident, as did his grandchild Tess. Tess was traumatized by the accident and had to receive psychiatric counseling for 12 months after the accident. Tess broke her left leg in the accident and also suffered from severe head injuries. She was hospitalized for 3 months and her grades in school dropped after the accident. This drop in grades severely affects her pre-accident ambitions of studying towards a law degree at the University of South Africa.

Pieter was 55 years old at the time of the accident and earned a yearly salary of R480 000. Magdel was the beneficiary of Pieter’s life insurance policy to the value of R2 million and also received a lump sum of R2.5 million from Pieter’s employment pension fund after his death. Pieter’s Toyota Tazz was fully insured with a reputable insurance company. Magdel is earning a salary of R7 000 per month and was away from the office for the 30 days she was hospitalized and took unpaid leave for  three months post the statutory maternity leave. Grandfather John owns his own business and after the accident he could no longer be involved in the day-to-day business of his company. He had to appoint a manager, Steven, to attend to his business interests. Pieter and his family were members of the ABC medical aid fund, but grandfather John had no personal medical insurance.

Law of Damages - Factual Scenario 2017 Semester 2 (Delictual Damages)

On the morning of Friday the 19^th May 2017 Shaun McFeast (of 12 Bergrivier drive, Kempton Park) assaulted his fiancé Ursula McLeod (of 72 Oranjerivier drive, Kempton Park) out of jealousy with the intent to cause her grievous bodily harm. He slapped her across the face and pushed her down the stairs. Ursula broke her arm and seriously injured her back. Shaun left her in pain and rushed out of her apartment into the parking lot of the complex. He jumped into his modified Fast and Furious Ford Ranger Wild-track and took off like a man in a hurry.  

Still seething from the anger of what he termed inappropriate conduct by her fiancé, Shaun’s mind was not on the wheel. This is so because he drove through a red robot at the corner of Kwartel Road and Mooifontein road and crashed into James Brown’s small Kia Picanto on the left hand side. Shaun’s negligent driving was the sole cause of the accident. Shaun’s 4x4 only had minor damage, but James’s vehicle was a complete write off due to the impact. Both motor vehicles were insured against damage.

At the time of impact, James had his safety belt on and as a result only suffered minor bruises. He was hospitalized at the Arwyp private hospital and was treated for shock and the minor bruises. James was released from hospital on the morning of Sunday the 21^st May 2017.

James’s pregnant wife, Tiffany, and their 5-year-old daughter, Angelique, both sitting on the left hand side in the vehicle, were seriously injured in the motor vehicle accident. Tiffany, 8 months into her pregnancy, was also wearing a safety belt and went into labour due to the accident. Young Matilda was born a few hours later, but her mother sadly died on Saturday morning, 20 May 2017, due to severe loss of blood. Matilda was born with deformities due to the motor vehicle accident and will need special care for the rest of her life.

At the time of impact, Angelique, who usually sits in her little baby seat at the back, had just loosed her safety belt to pick up some sweets that fell on the car seat. Unfortunately, she broke her left leg and her right shoulder in the accident. She had to undergo three operations to correct the fracture in her left leg. She will walk with difficulty for the rest of her life and her mobility has been affected by her injuries.

A month on from the tragic accident that claimed his wife’s life and left his two daughters with physical hardships, James suffered post-traumatic stress and had to receive psychiatric treatment for 12 months.

James had indemnity insurance to cover the damage to his vehicle, but because he was retrenched 3 months before the accident, he decided to cancel his full medical aid insurance and only had a hospital plan to cover the family at the time of the accident. Tiffany was a partner in a successful architect firm and James was the beneficiary of life insurance cover over her life (Tiffany) to the value of R10m. James sold the shares Tiffany held in the architect firm for R5m.   

Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC)

Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC)

Facts

The case of Volks v Robinson arose from a dispute over the interpretation of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990 (the Act). The Act provides for the maintenance of surviving spouses and children of deceased persons. In this case, the surviving partner of a deceased person claimed maintenance under the Act, but her claim was denied on the grounds that the Act did not apply to same-sex partnerships.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the Act should be interpreted to include same-sex partnerships.

Reasons

The Constitutional Court (CC) held that the Act should be interpreted to include same-sex partnerships. The CC reasoned that the Act was passed to protect the financial security of surviving spouses and children and that this protection should be extended to all spouses and children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the deceased person. The CC also held that the Act should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Conclusion

The CC allowed the appeal and held that the Act applies to same-sex partnerships. This means that surviving partners in same-sex relationships are entitled to claim maintenance under the Act.

Summary

The case of Volks v Robinson is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the CC has considered the rights of same-sex couples in the context of the Act.

The CC's decision in Volks v Robinson is based on the following principles:

• The Act should be interpreted in a way that protects the financial security of all surviving spouses and children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the deceased person.
• The Act should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The CC's decision in Volks v Robinson has a number of implications. First, it means that same-sex couples now have the same rights to maintenance under the Act as heterosexual couples. Second, the decision means that the Social Security Agency (SASSA), which administers the Act, will now need to pay out more money in maintenance to same-sex couples. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and inheritance law.

The decision has been welcomed by LGBTQ+ rights activists and legal experts. However, some commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will place an undue burden on SASSA and that it will lead to an increase in litigation.

Overall, the decision in Volks v Robinson is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the rights of same-sex couples and on the way that SASSA administers the Act.

Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2004 (1) SA 359 (SCA)

Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2004 (1) SA 359 (SCA)

Facts

Mr. Du Plessis was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of another driver. Mr. Du Plessis was seriously injured in the accident and sustained quadriplegia. He was unable to work and required lifelong care and assistance.

Mr. Du Plessis claimed damages from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for his loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The RAF admitted liability for the accident but disputed the quantum of damages.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Mr. Du Plessis was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Erasmus and Mr. Du Plessis had been in a same-sex relationship for a number of years and had entered into a contract with each other in which they agreed to support each other financially and emotionally.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Mr. Du Plessis was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus. The court reasoned that the RAF Act does not exclude same-sex partners from claiming damages for the loss of support. The court also held that it would be discriminatory to deny same-sex partners the right to claim damages for the loss of support, as this would violate their right to equality enshrined in the South African Constitution.

The court further held that the contract between Mr. Du Plessis and Mr. Erasmus was enforceable and that it created a legal duty of support between them. The court therefore found that Mr. Du Plessis had suffered a loss of support as a result of the accident and that he was entitled to claim damages from the RAF for this loss.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Mr. Du Plessis's appeal and awarded him damages for the loss of support from his partner, Mr. Erasmus.

Summary

The case of Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the SCA has considered whether same-sex partners are entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support.

The SCA's decision in Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund is based on the following principles:

• The RAF Act does not exclude same-sex partners from claiming damages for the loss of support.
• It would be discriminatory to deny same-sex partners the right to claim damages for the loss of support, as this would violate their right to equality enshrined in the South African Constitution.
• A contract between two people can create a legal duty of support between them.
• If a person suffers a loss of support as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of another person, they may be entitled to claim damages from that person.

The SCA's decision in Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund has a number of implications. First, it means that same-sex partners are now entitled to claim damages from the RAF for the loss of support. This is a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights in South Africa. Second, the decision means that the RAF will now need to pay out more money in damages. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and employment law.

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund 1999 (4) SA 1319 (SCA)

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund 1999 (4) SA 1319 (SCA)

Facts

Ms. Amod's husband was killed in a road accident caused by the negligence of another driver. Ms. Amod and her two minor children were financially dependent on her husband. Ms. Amod claimed damages from the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (MMF) for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

The MMF denied liability on the grounds that Ms. Amod's marriage was not recognized by South African law. Ms. Amod and her husband had been married in a Muslim ceremony, but they had not registered their marriage with the civil authorities.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Ms. Amod was entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support she and her children had suffered, even though her marriage was not recognized by South African law.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Ms. Amod was entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support she and her children had suffered. The court reasoned that the MMF Act does not exclude spouses from claiming damages for the loss of support simply because their marriage is not recognized by South African law. The court also held that it would be discriminatory to deny spouses the right to claim damages for the loss of support on the basis of the status of their marriage.

The court further held that Ms. Amod and her husband had entered into a valid customary marriage under Muslim law. The court found that the custom of polygamy was not repugnant to South African law and that Ms. Amod was therefore the lawful wife of her husband.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Ms. Amod's appeal and awarded her damages for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

Summary

The case of Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the SCA has considered whether spouses married in a customary marriage are entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support.

The SCA's decision in Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund is based on the following principles:

• The MMF Act does not exclude spouses from claiming damages for the loss of support simply because their marriage is not recognized by South African law.
• It would be discriminatory to deny spouses the right to claim damages for the loss of support on the basis of the status of their marriage.
• A customary marriage is a valid marriage under South African law, even if it is not registered with the civil authorities.

The SCA's decision in Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund has a number of implications. First, it means that spouses married in customary marriages are now entitled to claim damages from the MMF for the loss of support. This is a significant victory for the rights of women and children in customary marriages. Second, the decision means that the MMF will now need to pay out more money in damages. Third, the decision may have implications for other areas of law, such as family law and inheritance law.