Pretoria - A judge in a recent Road Accident Fund (RAF) judgment said “money in the coffers of the RAF must never be deemed to be easy money”.
Judge Mareena Opperman of the Free State Division of the High Court added “claims must be proven with integrity”.
“It is not a get-rich, quick opportunity and claimants must diligently and with integrity ensure that their costs are limited and proven to be the damages caused by the incident.”
Judge Opperman’s judgment was sparked by an application by man, now 54, who was in an accident six years ago when his vehicle collided with a trailer pulled by a car which had made a U-turn.
The man, identified as Mr M in her judgment, suffered back injuries. He was taken to hospital and sent home with pain medication.
He was at the time employed by the Department of Public Works as a construction project manager. Two years after the incident and after 30 years of service, he resigned, which caused a considerable loss of income and benefits to him.
M claimed nearly R6.9 million from the RAF, and included in this amount a claim for past and future loss of income amounting to R4 621 300. This amount is based on the calculations done by a team of actuaries appointed on his behalf.
He told the court he had resigned because he wanted to start a business with his son. He later admitted his resignation was “thoughtlessly” and “impulsively” two years after the incident; after 30 years of service. He said he realised his mistake and tried to retract the resignation, but his employer would not accept it.
His income dropped significantly after he left to work for his son in the his business. That, however, failed and M has been unemployed ever since.
The RAF objected to his claim for “loss of income” and maintained the fact he had resigned had nothing to do with his injuries.
It was said he should have explored his options within the department and not resigned on a whim to start a business. The court was told if he did not resign, the most likely outcome would have been the plaintiff could have been placed on ill-health pension with all the benefits such as medical aid and pension.
He could also have negotiated for his duties to be adapted to sedentary work and could have been employed up to the age of 62.
It was argued on behalf of the RAF it could not foot the bill for the his impulsive decision.
While he said he suffered from chronic pain, evidence was also produced that he had already suffered from back problems prior to the accident and his condition could not be entirely be blamed on the collision.
The court concluded there was not any evidence on record that he was forced to resign due to his injuries. The judge said the experts who were called, based the amount – R4.5m – they claimed on his behalf on insubstantial evidence.
They had taken M’s word he had resigned because of his medical condition after the accident, yet they did not ask to his employer if there were other alternatives at work for him.
Judge Opperman said: “I find it totally unacceptable that the plaintiff’s experts omitted to contact his employer to corroborate their opinions. Clearly their opinions are merely based on the say-so of the plaintiff.…
“To show the court’s displeasure in the manner in which these experts conducted their investigations, I have decided that they should not be entitled to their full qualifying fees.”
As to M’s claim, the judge said she could not make a finding. To give him a chance to prove his claim, she said said he could later return with a new application, if he wanted, and better facts, to support his claim.
Pretoria News