Spartan
Caselaw
ACTUARIAL CASE LAW REVIEW
Issue 139 – Monday 28 October 2024
ACTUARIAL – Loss of income – Proof – Child aged 8 at time of accident – Degloving of foot – Should still be able to achieve expected pre-collision educational and career prospects – Discomfort likely to continue into future – Mobility is restricted – Does not translate into a reduction of earning capacity causing loss – Must be proof that disability gives rise to patrimonial loss – Failed in proving that minor child suffered diminution in value of patrimony.
Claim: The plaintiff is an adult female person who sues in her representative capacity as a mother and legal guardian of a minor child. The cause of action arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred between the minor child of the plaintiff and an insured motor vehicle. The child was a pedestrian and was 8 years old at the time. As a result of the collision the minor child sustained various injuries including what was referred to as degloving of the foot. The defendant admitted 80% liability and the issues that the court was called upon to determine were past medical expenses and loss of earning capacity.
Assessment: The child was complaining of pains emanating from the anterior aspect of her right foot. She also complained of pain over the medial aspect of her right foot related to cold and inclement weather. She also had some difficulty standing for long periods of time because of her right knee and right foot injuries. At the time of the collision the minor child was playing netball which she has since stopped playing following the collision. It was also stated that prolonged walking exacerbates her right foot pains. She was severely and considerable disabled for 6 weeks, with 1 week of hospitalisation. The orthopaedic surgeon holds the view that the child will require conservative treatment for occasional right knee and foot symptoms. The evidence of the plastic surgeon remained unchallenged as the defendant didn’t have any expert witness to give a contrary view. The plaintiff has proved the claim in respect of future medical expenses. It is accepted that the minor child has not suffered any past loss of earnings due to the accident. The plaintiff didn’t lead any evidence from an educational psychologist to testify about the effect that the minor child may have suffered academically.
Findings: Based on a medical expert opinion, which was not contradicted, the plaintiff should still be able to achieve her expected pre-collision educational and career prospects. It is accepted that her current complaints of occasional right foot pain and discomfort is likely to continue. This may however be a sporadic occurrence. It follows that this may impact the ability to study and may also affect productivity levels after completion of a career of choice. The direct impact of that would be a delay in progression at the workplace. The consequence of that will impact salary progression. The question remains whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving that the child has suffered a diminution in the value of her patrimony. There is uncontradicted evidence that the child’s mobility is restricted, and that she suffers from minor physical handicaps as well, but this does necessarily translate into a reduction of earning capacity, causing loss. There must be proof that the disability gives rise to a patrimonial loss. This in turn will depend on the occupation or nature of the work which the plaintiff did pre-accident or would probably have done if no disability occurred. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the minor child suffered a diminution in the value of her patrimony.
THUPAATLASE AJ
ACTUARIAL – Loss of income – Pre-morbid scenario – Policeman who planned to join Special Task Force – Did not suffer from any pre-morbid physical or psychological inhibiting factors – Impact on promotion – Small group of individuals ultimately selected each year – Failed to show that accident or injuries caused a loss of earning capacity to the extent claimed – Contingencies of 31,5% and 30% most reasonable and fair outcome – R1,730,774.29.
Pre-accident: The plaintiff, a 34-year-old male, is a policeman. He joined the police in 2019 and was still employed as such at the time of the trial. The plaintiff was employed as a non-commissioned officer, a constable. The plaintiff noted that he did not suffer from any pre-morbid physical or psychological inhibiting factors. He specifically noted that he was a very healthy and fit individual, having been an avid boxer his entire life as part of his fitness routine. He also trained other boxers. The plaintiff noted that his physical fitness was important to him as he planned to apply to serve in the Special Task Force (STF) unit.
Accident: The plaintiff was involved in an accident in 2020 at the age of 31 years old. The only issues that remain alive for adjudication are the plaintiff’s claims for loss of income and for past hospital and medical expenses.
Assessment: The viva voce evidence by the industrial psychologist assisted the court, but the plaintiff did not testify. His version was not tested under cross-examination. This complicates the evidence, specifically so, on the aspect of the plaintiff joining the Special Task Force (STF) and the advantages that would have flowed from that in terms of his promotion. The plaintiff would have been able to progress in his career via promotion. The expert inquired from captain Shekoe with regards to the plaintiff’s ambition to join the STF of the SAPS. She noted that the process to enrol for the STF is completely voluntary and that those individuals that want to become part of the elite unit are required to undergo a very stringent selection process. There is not any evidence on record that the plaintiff’s performance was above average. According to captain Shekoe, only a very small group of individuals are ultimately selected each year for the unit. She noted that once an individual has been selected, they are required to complete their National Diploma qualification as part of their development. In terms of their progression, this would have been similar to that of the normal SAPS rank structure.
Post-morbid career progression: The plaintiff returned to his role as constable at SAPS. He noted that he was accommodated on his return and placed on light duty. In the expert’s opinion, the plaintiff will most probably, at best, only progress via grade progression in his post-morbid capacity. In the expert’s opinion, promotion is not likely to take place, given the fact that the plaintiff will have to compete against several other able-bodied colleagues. Taking into consideration the policy, the plaintiff’s future progress will most likely be slow and vacancy dependent. In the expert’s opinion, the plaintiff’s future grade progression progress will likely be approximately ten years.
Findings: There are three hurdles for a plaintiff to overcome, before he could be advanced to another rank. Without successful enrolment and completion of the STF programme, the claimant’s rate of advancement within the SAPS rank structure would most probably have been slower. But for the accident, only one scenario is postulated. Essentially, this postulation is based on the plaintiff’s successful application for and appointment to the SPF. Only a very small group of individuals are ultimately selected each year for the unit. The plaintiff has not shown that the accident or his injuries have caused a loss of earning capacity or will cause a loss of earnings in the future, to the extent claimed. The proven facts and case law directs contingencies of 31,5% and 30% to be the most reasonable and fair outcome in the case.
Award: Past and future loss of earnings/earning capacity are awarded at R1,730,774.29 to which a deduction of 10% is made due to the 90% apportionment in plaintiff’s favour.
OPPERMAN J
ACTUARIAL – Loss of support – Evidence of need – Claim on behalf of dependant minor – Claim is inchoate and unsustainable without proof of actual need for support of lost breadwinner – Sole evidence of need for support of 7-year-old child is maintenance court order against breadwinner – Maintenance order belongs to duty of support – Unsuitable in isolation for measurement of claim in delict for loss of support – R565,109 – Payment suspended pending appointment and investigation of curator ad litem.
Claim: The plaintiff, on behalf of her minor son, instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund for compensation for loss of support arising out of the death of Z’s father, (Mr D), in a motor collision that occurred with a driver insured by the Fund. Paternity and duty of support have remained issues on the pleadings throughout the proceedings.
Evidence of need: The maintenance order referred to in the agreement is an order of the Maintenance Court made against Mr D when Z was 10 months old. The plaintiff had included the maintenance order in her discovery affidavit for the sole purpose of advancing her case on Mr D’s paternity of Z, which he said was necessitated by the Fund’s denial of Mr D’s paternity of Z in its plea. The maintenance order directed Mr D in 2015 to pay the plaintiff R1,000 per month as a contribution towards maintenance for Z, and to retain Z on a medical aid. The vagueness of the agreement is that it is lacking in certainty as to the legal consequence; and a finding by the court is possible that the maintenance order has no bearing on the compensability and claim. Mr Khan correctly submitted that without proof of actual need for support of a lost breadwinner, a claim for loss of support is inchoate and unsustainable. It was for this reason that he submitted that the maintenance order, however inadequate for Z’s present and future needs, is the only evidence of his actual need, and thus should be relied upon by the court in the calculation of the value of his loss of Mr D’s support.
Assessment: Mr Khan’s contention that the court must utilize the actuarial calculation in making an award for loss of support, must fail at least by virtue of his concessions in argument that the maintenance order cannot be regarded as a suitable guide for the court for the assessment of the true (i.e. proven) monetary value of Z’s loss of Mr D’s support due to the relief therein of R1,000 per month and retention of Z on a medical aid at age 10 months, being a totally inadequate measurement of maintenance currently required by Z at 8 years of age. By virtue of the admitted total disconnect of the maintenance order with the current reality of Z’s age and obviously vastly different needs to those that would be associated with a baby of 10 months, 7 years Z’s junior, the maintenance order cannot be regarded as having any bearing on the compensability and claim.
Findings: The court is entitled to infer from the agreement that once it has decided that the order of the Maintenance Court has no bearing on the compensability and claim, the actuarial report should be utilized in making an award for loss of support to the plaintiff that accurately measures the value of Z’s actual loss of support from Mr D. There is no indication that Z is better off financially because of the death of Mr D. The maintenance order against Mr D has no bearing on the compensability and claim. As Mr D was at the time of his death supporting Z while he was still at school, the court finds that the Fund is obligated to the plaintiff for damages in the sum of R565,109 to compensate for Z’s loss of Mr D’s support, measured until age 21. It remains to consider the best interests of Z regarding the management and protection of the award for his benefit. To this end, the court proposes that the execution of the order for the payment of damages be suspended pending the appointment of a curator ad litem to investigate and report on the most suitable options for protection of the award in Z’s best interests.
Award: The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff on behalf of Z, R565,109. Execution of the order is suspended pending the implementation of recommendations of the curator ad litem in a report concerning the best interests of Z in respect of the need for and most suitable form of protection of the award.
KATZEW AJ
16 October 2024
MAKHOBA J
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – Gunshot wounds – Amputation – Duty to report condition immediately to doctor – Nursing staff provided necessary care to plaintiff by checking her condition within reasonable time frames – Doctor was called and alerted about plaintiff’s condition – Took reasonable steps to prevent further deterioration of plaintiff’s leg – Rare neurovascular complication – Complication was not reasonably foreseeable – No negligence – Claim dismissed.
Facts and issue: The plaintiff instituted a claim against the defendant for medical negligence which she suffered while under the care of the defendant’s employees. The plaintiff was shot on both lower limbs and sustained gunshot wounds. She was admitted and treated at Tambo Memorial Hospital. Unfortunately, while she was still in hospital her right leg above the knee was amputated. The issues are whether there was negligence on the part of the medical and nursing staff of the hospital in treating the plaintiff.
Discussion: According to Prof Veller with reference to the medical records, the plaintiff first suffered paraesthesia (loss of sensation) which was followed by paralysis (loss of movement). This led to what is called Ischemia. According to Prof Veller, when confronted with this condition the nurse should have reported it to a doctor who would have been able to interpret it. A registered nurse that the plaintiff had signs of ischemia which is a condition where the plaintiff had pain and decreased sensation. The nurses were supposed to report the condition immediately to a doctor. Only a doctor can make a diagnosis of ischemia. She testified further that, the pedal pulse as noted on the hospital records, is not reasonable and was substandard. The strength of the pulse was important to identify any changes in the condition of the patient. According to Prof. Becker it is incumbent that the nursing staff must phone the doctor when they notice a change in the condition of a patient. He testified further that had there been an intervention at the loss of sensation, the plaintiff’s leg would most probably been saved.
Findings: The question is therefore whether the plaintiff’s amputation of the leg would not have occurred had the defendant’s nursing staff timeously alerted the doctor about any changes in the plaintiff’s right leg which could have prevented the amputation. The defendant’s nursing staff provided the necessary care to the plaintiff under the circumstances by checking her condition within reasonable time frames. They discharged the duties according to the general level of knowledge then available to them. The doctor was called and alerted about the plaintiff’s condition. The defendant’s nursing staff by summoning the doctor they took reasonable steps to prevent further deterioration of the plaintiff’s right leg. The plaintiff had a rare neurovascular complication. This complication was not reasonably foreseeable. There was no negligence on the part of the defendant.
Order: The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with cost.
21 October 2024
DIBETSO-BODIBE AJ
PERSONAL INJURY – Unlawful detention – Quantum – 18 hours and 32 minutes – Past initial 48 hours from arrest – Poor conditions of holding cells – Suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure – Alleges defendant refused him access to medication – Loss of employment due to arrest – No precedent for such a short period of detention – Plaintiff’s claim for having been kept in custody for less than 24 hours is exorbitant – Appropriate amount considered – R45,000 – Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 50(1)(d)(i).
Facts and issue: The plaintiff brings a delictual claim against the Minister of Police. The matter proceeds on quantum only after the order of the court a quo finding that the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful and detention unlawful. The order of the court a quo simply declared the period from 15h28 on Wednesday, 16th September 2015 unlawful but is silent as to the computation of the whole period of detention declared unlawful for the purposes of calculation of damages.
Discussion: The plaintiff stated that he was released at 16h00 on Thursday, 17th September 2015 after he was given his personal belongings which he had been waiting for. It was put to him on behalf of the defendant that he was released from detention around 10h00 when he was brought to court for his bail application. The court agrees with the version of the defendant that the plaintiff was released from custody at 10h00 on 17th September 2015 when he was handed over to court for his bail application. The approximate period of the unlawful detention for the plaintiff is, therefore 18 hours 32 minutes. The plaintiff testified that he suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure and the members of the defendant refused him access to medication. He was appointed as the accounting officer of his church prior to the arrest but had to be removed after his release from custody because he was perceived as a thief. His experience of incarceration negatively impacted his marital relationship in that his wife turned cold towards him and that this resulted in the absence of intimacy between them.
Findings: The court has been tasked to determine quantum for the period of detention endured by the plaintiff outside of the 48 hours within which the plaintiff should have been brought before court for his first court appearance. The conditions in which the plaintiff was detained were unclean, crowded, lacked privacy, demeaning and gave the plaintiff cause for concern for his personal safety. The court considered a vast array of matters for comparison of awards made. None of the matters falls squarely within the purview of the current facts under consideration to be an accurate guide. The plaintiff has claimed general damages in the amount of R75,000 for having been kept in custody for less than 24 hours, comparatively speaking this is exorbitant.
Order: The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R45,000.
7 October 2024
HASSIM J
RAF – Loss of income – Pre-existing condition – Severe depression and extremely severe anxiety and stress – Deaths of mother and sister affected plaintiff significantly – Struggled to cope with grief – Impact of her HIV diagnosis – Demonstrated predisposition to depression and sadness which may not be attributable to accident entirely – Extended periods of unemployment – 20% deduction for contingencies on pre-morbid future income – R1,500,740.
Facts and issue: The defendant has conceded that it is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the full loss suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident which occurred while she was a passenger in the insured vehicle. She was 30 years old when the accident occurred and a general worker at Mabhula trading store where she had been employed since 2019. Her responsibilities were cleaning and packing stock. Two disputes remain. The one concerns the quantum of the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings, and the other the quantum of her claim for general damages as well as applicable contingencies.
Discussion: Compared to her healthy peers, the plaintiff will not be able to perform functions as efficiently and effectively as them. She has therefore since the accident been rendered vulnerable in the workplace and is an unequal competitor in the open labour market. The plaintiff’s case is that she is unemployable. The pre-existing conditions may have affected the plaintiff’s ability to earn an income and therefore her pre-morbid future earnings. This in turn would affect the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for compensation for loss of earnings. Ms Mothiba highlighted that the counselling psychologist had reported that the plaintiff suffered severe depression and extremely severe anxiety and stress. It was also reported that the plaintiff’s mother’s death in a motor vehicle accident in 2011 and the death of the plaintiff’s sister had affected the plaintiff significantly and she had struggled to cope with the grief. This, it was argued, demonstrated a predisposition to depression and the sadness which the plaintiff was reportedly experiencing may not be attributable to the accident entirely.
Findings: While the court agrees that a higher deduction for contingencies should be applied to the plaintiff’s premorbid future earnings, it does not agree that a higher deduction for contingencies is warranted on the grounds identified by the defendant. In the absence of medical evidence on the impact that the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions, or the HIV positive diagnosis would have had on her premorbid future earnings, there is no basis for taking these circumstances into account in deciding an appropriate deduction for contingencies on pre-morbid future earnings. However, a deduction for contingencies higher than 15% is warranted because of the plaintiff’s extended periods of unemployment premorbid. Considering the extended periods of unemployment, a 20% deduction for contingencies on the plaintiff’s pre-morbid future income is fair and reasonable.
Order: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff R2,100,740.00 for damages made up of R1,500,740 for past and future loss of earnings and R600,000 for general damages.
17 October 2024
MNCUBE AJ
RAF – Expert evidence – Affidavit – Complaints of defects in application – Inconsistency regarding work history of plaintiff – Contention that expert did not canvass other employment falling within category of medium unskilled labourer which is relevant for contingency deduction – Interest of justice and right of defendant to cross examine experts far outweigh balance of convenience to court and plaintiff – Application dismissed – Uniform Rule 38(2).
Facts and issue: Application lodged by the plaintiff in terms of Rule 38 (2) of the Uniform Rules to lead experts’ evidence by way of affidavits. The plaintiff is claiming damages for loss of earnings. Liability has been conceded by the defendant. The bone of contention between the parties is that the plaintiff wishes to lead the evidence of his experts by way of affidavit. The issue is whether the application to adduce evidence by way of affidavits should be granted.
Discussion: The first ground for the opposition is that the application is defective. Adhering to procedure when making applications is important. Unless the opposing party takes no issue with the procedure adopted and concentrates on the substance of the issue, the court can exercise its discretion to condone the failure to comply with the rules. The insistence to uphold litigants to this standard, the court ensures consistency and a high regard for the legal profession. Any application must be done in terms of the rules. Regrettably, the plaintiff has failed to do so. It follows that there is merit to this ground. When considering the merit of the application, the defendant’s main objection is that the report by the industrial psychologist does not contain an indication if the plaintiff’s employers were contacted. This omission has the effect that the report contains hearsay information, and the omission will affect the contingency deductions. The defendant in essence does not consent to adducing evidence by affidavits.
Findings: The claim is based on the loss of earnings which is usually proved by experts who consider many factors. In view of the nature of the claim and the reasons advanced by the defendant, the interest of justice favours that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff’s experts. By giving viva voce evidence not only will this assist the defendant to test the veracity of the evidence, but it will also benefit the court to make an informed decision with special reference to the issue of quantum and contingency deductions to be applied. The interest of justice and the right of the defendant to cross examine the experts far outweigh the balance of convenience to the court and the plaintiff.
Order: The application is dismissed.
22 October 2024
KEYSER AJ
RAF – Liability – Intoxicated plaintiff – Unreliable witness – Two versions of witness differ materially – Inconsistent with evidence witness produced in court – Two affidavits of plaintiff are contradictory – Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level far exceeded legal limit – Highly intoxicated at time of collision – Would not have been able to safely operate vehicle – Plaintiff’s representatives failed to comply with directive which required full disclosure – Claim dismissed.
Facts and issue: Application for default judgment. The plaintiff issued summons which summons, and particulars of claim were served on the defendant. The defendant has failed to defend the action. The plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle when allegedly an unknown vehicle driven by an unknown person drove into the path of travel of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the sole cause of the collision was due to the negligent driving of the insured driver as he was negligent in one or more ways.
Discussion: The two versions contained in the affidavits of the witness differ materially. The first affidavit indicates that the insured vehicle approached their vehicle from around a curve on the incorrect side of the road. The second affidavit does not mention that the insured vehicle came around a curve but merely indicates that the insured vehicle veered into their lane of travel. Both the affidavits are inconsistent with the evidence that the witness has produced in court. The witness indicated that the Plaintiff was “dead sober” and had only consumed one beer. The timeline presented by the witness leaves approximately 2 hours unaccounted for. It would be improbable that the plaintiff and the witness only became aware of the insured vehicle when he pointed to an upcoming curve in the road as the road is straight and there is nothing that would have impeded the plaintiff’s view of the road ahead if the plaintiff was keeping a proper lookout.
Findings: The lab results indicate that the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level far exceeded the legal limit. The plaintiff was highly intoxicated at the time of the collision. The plaintiffs blood alcohol concentration tested 0.3% grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. With such a high blood alcohol concentration the plaintiff would not have been able to safely operate the vehicle. The plaintiff’s representatives failed to comply with the directive included in the court roll which required full disclosure for purpose of default judgement as no mention was made of the intoxication of the plaintiff and it was left to the court to read through a host of documentation to ascertain the facts for itself.
Order: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
17 October 2024
CHESIWE J
RAF – Loss of income – Self-employed and unskilled – Quantification of loss – Ankle injury – Food and fruits vendor – General worker with no particular skills or qualifications – Wholly reliant on physical ability to work – Injuries are not of such serious nature – Difficult to quantify loss of earning or earning capacity of unskilled self-employed individual – Did not provide any proof of income – Just and reasonable contingency of 5% for past loss and 25% for future loss applied.
Facts and issue: The plaintiff instituted a claim for damages against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for injuries sustained when the insured driver collided with the plaintiff who was a pedestrian. The defendant conceded the merits at 80% for the plaintiff’s proven and agreed damages as well as an undertaking in terms of s 17(4)(a), limited to 80%. The only issue for determination is the claim for general damages and loss of earning capacity.
Discussion: The plaintiff stated that when the accident occurred, he was unemployed but was selling food and fruits at a school as a vendor. He was previously employed at an old age home as a general worker but could not recall the year. After his employment at the old age home, he was employed at PVC Ceilings where he was later retrenched in December 2019. At PVC Ceilings, he earned R38,134 per annum. He did not find any employment thereafter. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is wholly reliant on his physical ability to work and has been severely truncated. That the plaintiff’s injuries and treatment have impacted on his life amenities and that plaintiff cannot be gainfully employed post-morbidity. Counsel on behalf of the defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s injuries are not of a serious nature and the comparable cases in respect of general damages. Where the court granted just and fair awards with regard to loss of earning capacity, counsel submitted that the plaintiff did not provide any proof of income.
Findings: The plaintiff’s injuries are not of such a serious nature that he was to be awarded a high amount as the principle on awarding damages is not to pour out largesse from the horn of plenty in favour of the plaintiff. It is difficult to quantify the loss of earning or earning capacity of an unskilled self-employed individual such as plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he was a vendor selling food and fruits at a local school and that his income varied between R700 and R1,000. The plaintiff confirmed that even post the accident, he is still self-employed as a vendor and still functions in the same way except that he is unable to find employment. The plaintiff did not provide any proof of income. The plaintiff has suffered loss of earning and evidently with no case law which can be compared for a vendor such as him. A fair, just and reasonable contingency of 5% for past loss and 25% for future loss should be applied.
Order: The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R934,651 in respect of general damages and loss of earning capacity (after deduction of 20% for the apportionment).
18 October 2024
MAKHAFOLA J
RAF – Liability – Plaintiff’s version – Failure to stop at intersection – Whether one of the parties has stopped or not at stop sign – Lay-out of events by insured driver not disputed by plaintiff – Plaintiff not certain whether truck was behind bus or not – Contradicted himself materially – Improbable for plaintiff to have seen truck driving at high speed at distance of 100 meters in mist – Failed to prove factual allegations for damages sued – Claim dismissed.
Facts and issue: The plaintiff issued summons against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor collision. The collision between the kombi driven by him, a Toyota Quantum, and Toyota Hino Truck driven by the insured driver, occurred due to the sole negligence of the insured driver who failed to stop at a stop sign he alleged. The plaintiff was driving from North to South towards the intersection which is controlled by 4-way stop signs. Each driver alleged that he had stopped at the stop sign before crossing the intersection. This is the only dispute to be decided by the court.
Discussion: It is strange that the plaintiff saw only one bus behind which the truck was travelling to the stop sign. The truck driver described two buses behind which he was driving. He described how the two buses had stopped at an informal bus halt, and that the GT bus turned left into the direction from which the plaintiff had come. The plaintiff was able to see only one bus which turned to where he had come from. He does not testify about the buses having stopped at that informal bus stop, and about passengers boarding the Phadziri Bus which ultimately drove Eastward to Giyani, that the truck driver had observed. The lay-out of the events by the insured driver was never disputed by the plaintiff, save to say the truck was driven at a high speed and had never stopped at the stop sign. If what was observed by the truck driver is correct about the two buses, and how they had stopped, why could the plaintiff not see the Phadziri Bus which had also proceeded straight en route the travel of the truck? It is probable that the events leading to the collision are as observed by the truck driver.
Findings: It is negligent to drive at a speed of 40 kilometers per hour when the plaintiff drove towards the intersection when he could only see within the range of 12 meters. The plaintiff contradicted himself materially when he said that on entering the intersection he could see the truck at about 100 meters. Whereas, he had testified that there was mist, and he could only see at 12 meters. It is improbable for the plaintiff to have seen the truck driving at a high speed at 100 meters in the mist. The plaintiff needs more evidence to achieve the standard required to prove, on a balance of probabilities, his claim if the inherent improbabilities in his evidence are to be overcome. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus he bears to prove his factual allegations for damages sued.
Order: The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.
BOOKS / RESEARCH / ARTICLES
Authors: Shaokang Wang, Han Lin Shang, Leonie Tickle and Han Li
We introduce the function principal component regression (FPCR) forecasting method to model and forecast age-specific survival functions observed over time. The age distribution of survival functions is an example of constrained data whose values lie within a unit interval. Because of the constraint, such data do not reside in a linear vector space. A natural way to deal with such a constraint is through an invertible logit transformation that maps constrained onto unconstrained data in a linear space. With a time series of unconstrained data, we apply a functional time-series forecasting method to produce point and interval forecasts. The forecasts are then converted back to the original scale via the inverse logit transformation. Using the age- and sex-specific survival functions for Australia, we investigate the point and interval forecast accuracies for various horizons. We conclude that the functional principal component regression (FPCR) provides better forecast accuracy than the Lee–Carter (LC) method. Therefore, we apply FPCR to calculate annuity pricing and compare it with the market annuity price.
PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE NOTES
APN 701: Delictual and Other Legal Matters
APN 901: General Actuarial Practice
APN 904: Market conduct and treating customers fairly
Recommended Experience Requirements: Calculations for delictual and other legal matters
The Actuarial Case Law Review is published in collaboration with Algorithm Consulants & Actuaries