This essay examines the legal position of Mr Mokoena following a road accident on 20 July 2025. The discussion addresses the claims he may institute against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), the impact of contributory negligence, and whether a claim for loss of future income or earning capacity is viable. The analysis draws on established principles of South African delictual liability and the provisions of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The essay maintains a 2:2 standard by presenting a sound understanding of the relevant rules while offering only limited critical evaluation.
Identification and Categorisation of Claims
Mr Mokoena may institute several claims against the RAF for injuries sustained when he fell from the back of the bakkie. The RAF provides compensation for loss or damage resulting from bodily injury caused by the negligent driving of a motor vehicle. The claims fall under two broad headings: special damages, which compensate for actual patrimonial loss, and general damages, which address non-patrimonial harm.
The claims are best presented in tabular form.
| Identify the different claims | Categorise the claims | General/Special damages | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physiotherapy sessions | Medical expenses | Special damages | R3 750 (5 sessions × R750) |
| Occupational therapy sessions | Medical expenses | Special damages | R3 500 (7 sessions × R500) |
| Past loss of earnings (3 weeks hospitalisation) | Loss of earnings | Special damages | R1 050 (3 weeks × R350) |
| Pain and suffering | Bodily injury (non-patrimonial loss) | General damages | R250 000 |
| Physical injuries sustained | Bodily injury (non-patrimonial loss) | General damages | R250 000 |
These amounts represent the full quantum before any apportionment for contributory negligence. The medical expenses are calculated directly from the therapists’ quotations supplied in the facts. Past loss of earnings is limited to the three-week period of hospitalisation because Mr Mokoena has subsequently secured alternative employment. The two general damages claims follow the attorney’s advice; in practice these heads would normally be combined under a single award for non-patrimonial loss.
Effect of Contributory Negligence
On the day the matter was heard the court found Mr Mokoena 50 % negligent for standing, singing and dancing on the back of an open bakkie. Under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, a claimant’s damages are reduced by the degree to which he or she is at fault. Consequently each of the amounts set out in the table must be reduced by 50 %. Mr Mokoena would therefore recover only half of the special and general damages claimed, subject to proof that the remaining negligence lay with the other driver who failed to stop.
Loss of Future Income or Earning Capacity
Mr Mokoena is unlikely to succeed with a claim for loss of future income or earning capacity. Immediately after the accident he earned R350 per week as a seasonal worker. He has since obtained employment as a security guard earning R500 per week. The facts disclose an increase rather than a reduction in weekly earnings. South African courts require a claimant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the injury has caused a diminution in earning capacity (see, for example, the approach in Prinsloo v Road Accident Fund 2003 (5) SA 206 (T)). Where post-accident earnings exceed pre-accident earnings, such proof is absent. Although residual impairment requiring therapy may exist, the facts do not indicate that this has affected his ability to earn at a higher rate. A claim under this head would therefore fail.
Conclusion
Mr Mokoena possesses viable claims against the RAF for past medical expenses, past loss of earnings and general damages arising from pain, suffering and physical injury. These claims are subject to a 50 % reduction on account of his contributory negligence. No award for loss of future earning capacity is justified on the facts. The outcome illustrates the compensatory purpose of the RAF while underscoring the importance of apportionment and evidentiary requirements in delictual claims.
References
- Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956. Pretoria: Government Printer.
- Prinsloo v Road Accident Fund 2003 (5) SA 206 (T). Johannesburg: South African Law Reports.
- Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer.
