ROAD Accident FUND v Mtati 2005 (6) SA 215 (SCA) PDF

Preview

Summary

CASE LAWS...

Description

Source: SouthAfricanLawReports,The(1947todate)/CHRONOLOGICALLISTINGOFCASES–January1947toMarch2022/2005/Volume6:1312(November)/ROAD ACCIDENTFUNDvMTATI2005(6)SA215(SCA) URL: http://jutastat.juta.co.za/nxt/gateway.dll/salr/3/4055/4271/4286?f=templates$fn=default.htm ROADACCIDENTFUNDvMTATI2005(6)SA215(SCA) 2005(6)SAp215

Citation

2005(6)SA215(SCA)

CaseNo

332/2004

Court

SupremeCourtofAppeal

Judge

MpatiDP,ZulmanJA,FarlamJA,VanHeerdenJAandJaftaJA

Heard

May17,2005

Judgment

June1,2005

Counsel

ADSchoeman(withBLBoswell)fortheappellant. AGDugmore(withSRugunanan)fortherespondent.

Annotations

LinktoCaseAnnotations

B

Flynote:Sleutelwoorde PersonsFoetusInjuriessustainedbyRightofchildtosueforprenatalinjuriesRightofactiononlybecomingcompleteafterchildbornalive Claimlapsingunlesslitiscontestatioreachedinsubsequentaction. DelictActionfordamagesBychildforprenatalinjuriesViabilityof C  claimLegalprinciplestobeappliedRightofchildtosueforprenatal injuriesWhethersuchactionshouldbeallowedbyusing nasciturusruleorbyusingordinaryprinciplesoflawofdelictRightofactiononly becomingcompleteafterchildbornaliveClaimlapsingunlesslitiscontestatioreachedinsubsequentaction. MotorvehicleaccidentsCompensationClaimforintermsofMultilateralMotorVehicleAccidentsFundAct93of D 1989Injuriessufferedby pregnantmotherinmotorvehicleaccidenthavingsequelaeafterbirthWhetherchild(foetusinuteroattimeofinjury)toberegardedas'person' entitledtocompensationforbraindamageresultingfrominjuriessustainedbymotherincollisioncausedbyorarisingoutofnegligentdrivingof motorE vehicleWhethersuchhasclaimagainstunderart40ofActforlossordamagesufferedasresultofsuchinjury.

Headnote:Kopnota Therightofachildtosueforprenatalinjuriesisrecognisedinlaw,butthemoredifficultquestioniswhethersuchanactionshouldbeallowed byusingthenasciturusruleorbyusing'theFordinaryprinciplesofthelawofdelict'.Thecontentionthattherecognitionofanactionfor prenatalinjuriesislogicallyimpossiblewithouttheconfermentoflegalrights,andhencelegalpersonality,upontheunbornchild,asachievedby thenasciturusrule,istoberejected.Thedamageissufferedbytheplaintiffatthemomentthat,inlaw,theplaintiffachievespersonalityand inheritsthedamagedbodyforwhichthedefendantsareresponsible.TheG eventspriortobirtharemerelinksinthechainofcausation betweenthedefendants'assumedlackofskillandcareandtheconsequentialdamagetotheplaintiff.(Paragraphs[27][33],paraphrasedat 224J226E.)Ontheordinaryprinciplesofthelawofdelict,unlawfulnessanddamagesarenottobeconflatedeachisaseparateelementfor delictualliability.Inourlaw,fortheelementofwrongfulnesstobepresent,H therehastobeabreachofalegalduty.(Paragraphs[35][36] at227G227J.)The'floodgates'scenarioisnotlikelytoariseinourlawforseveralreasons.Therightofactiononlybecomescompletewhen thechildisbornalive.Aclaimofaprenatallyinjuredchildwhodiesshortlyafterbirthlapsesunlessactionhasalreadybeeninstitutedandthe proceedingshavealreadyreachedthestageoflitiscontestatiointhecaseoftheactioinjuriarumandtheIactionforpainandsuffering.Any claimthechildmighthaveforlossofexpectationoflifewillberegardedaspartofhisorherclaimforlossofamenitiesandwillthuslapseon thechild'sdeathandthechildwillhavenoclaimforlossofincomeduringthe'lostyears'.(Paragraphs[38][39]at228C/DH.)J 2005(6)SAp216

Semble:Asfarasapossibleclaimbyachildagainstitsmotherforprenatalinjuriesisconcerned,suchaclaimwillonlylieA ifandtothe extentthatanenforceablelegaldutyonthepartofthemothertowardsherchildisrecognised.(Paragraph[40]at228H/I.) ThedecisionofHiemstraJinPinchinandAnotherNOvSantamInsuranceCoLtd 1963(2)SA254(W)confirmed.ThejudgmentoftheCourta quoinMtativRoadAccidentFund(unreported,ECDcaseNo1013/2001,24February2004)upheld.B CasesConsidered Annotations Reportedcases BonbrestvKotz65FSupp138(DDC1946):discussed BurtonvIslingtonHealthAuthority;DeMartellvMertonandSuttonHealthAuthority[1992]3AllER833C (CA):dictaat840fgand842c  d applied ChisholmvEastRandProprietaryMinesLtd1909TH297:considered ChristianLawyersAssociationofSAandOthersvMinisterofHealthandOthers 1998(4)SA1113(T)(1998(11)BCLR1434):referredto ChristianLeagueofSouthernAfricavRall 1981(2)SA821(O):referredto DeMartellvMertonandSuttonHealthAuthority[1992]3AllER820(QBD):dictumat832abappliedD DietrichvNorthampton138Mass14,52AmRep242(1884):referredto DuvalvSeguin(1972)26DLR(3d)418(OntHC):discussed FriedmanvGlicksman 1996(1)SA1134(W):referredto HoffavSAMutualFireandGeneralInsuranceCoLtd 1965(2)SA944(C):dictaat950and955appliedE KnopvJohannesburgCityCouncil 1995(2)SA1(A):dictumat27Efollowed

©2018JutaandCompany(Pty)Ltd.

Downloaded:FriMar04202213:12:47GMT+0200(SouthAfricaStandardTime)

Lockhat'sEstatevNorthBritish&MercantileInsuranceCoLtd 1959(3)SA295(A):referredto MontrealTramwaysCovLeveille[1933]4DLR337(SCC):dictumat345appliedF NeueJuristischeWochenschrift(1953)I418:discussed PinchinandAnotherNOvSantamInsuranceCoLtd 1963(2)SA254(W):considered,discussedandappliedG PinchinandAnotherNOvSantamInsuranceCoLtd 1963(4)SA666(A):explained PotgietervSustein(Edms)Bpk 1990(2)SA15(T):dictumat2122applied StevensonNOvTransvaalProvincialAdministration1934TPD80:dictumat85overruled VanHeerdenandAnothervJoubertNOandOthers 1994(4)SA793(A):considered WattvRama[1972]VR353(FC):dictumat360discussed. StatutesConsidered Statutes

H

TheMultilateralMotorVehicleAccidentsFundAct93of1989,Schedule,art40:seeJuta'sStatutesofSouthAfrica1996vol4at3199. CaseInformation AppealagainstanorderoftheEastLondonCircuitLocalDivisionoftheHighCourt(FronemanJ)dismissingaspecialplearaisedbytheappellant againstanactionbroughtbytherespondentonbehalfofhisminordaughter.Thefactsandissuesappearfromthe I reasonsforjudgment handeddownbyFarlamJA,theremainderoftheCourtconcurring. ADSchoeman(withBLBoswell)fortheappellant. AGDugmore(withSRugunanan)fortherespondent.J 2005(6)SAp217

InadditiontotheauthoritiescitedinthejudgmentoftheCourt,counselforthepartiesreferredtothefollowing:A AAMutualAssuranceAssociationLtdvBiddulphandAnother 1976(1)SA725(A) Administrator,Transvaal,andOthersvTraubandOthers 1989(4)SA731(A)

B

AetnaInsuranceCovMinisterofJustice 1960(3)SA273(A) BvIslingtonHealthAuthority[1991]1AllER825(QBD) BarnardvSantamBpk 1999(1)SA202(SCA) BlowervVanNoorden1909TS890 CapeTownMunicipalityvBakkerud 2000(3)SA1049(SCA) CarmichelevMinisterofSafetyandSecurityandAnother(CentreforAppliedLegalStudiesIntervening) 2001(4)SA938(CC)(2002(1)SACR 79;2001(10)BCLR995)C CasserleyvStubbs1916TPD310 DuPlessisandAnothervRoadAccidentFund 2001(4)SA1140(N) EvinsvShieldInsuranceCoLtd 1980(2)SA814(A)

D

FerreiravLevinNOandOthers;VryenhoekandOthersvPowellNOandOthers 1996(1)SA984(CC)(1996(1)BCLR1) Fundstrust(Pty)Ltd(inLiquidation)vVanDeventer 1997(1)SA710(A) Geldenhuys&JoubertvVanWyk;VanWykvGeldenhuys&Joubert 2005(2)SA512(SCA)

E

HobanvAbsaBankLtdt/aUnitedBank,andOthers 1999(2)SA1036(SCA) JagavDöngesNOandAnother;BhanavDöngesNOandAnother 1950(4)SA653(A) MasombukavConstantiaVersekeringsmaatskappyBpk 1987(1)SA525(T)

F

MineworkersInvestmentCompany(Pty)LtdvModibane 2002(6)SA512(W) PublicCarriersAssociationandOthersvTollRoadConcessionaries(Pty)LtdandOthers 1990(1)SA925(A) RivettCarnacvWiggins 1997(3)SA80(C)

G

RoadAccidentFundvSauls 2002(2)SA55(SCA) SvCollop 1981(1)SA150(A) SvLeeuw 1980(3)SA815(A) SvMakwanyaneandAnother 1995(3)SA391(CC)(1995(2)SACR1;1995(6)BCLR665)H SvMokgethi 1990(1)SA32(A) SmitvAbrahams 1994(4)SA1(A) StegenandOthersvShieldInsuranceCoLtd 1976(2)SA175(N) Union&SouthWestAfricaInsuranceCoLtdvFantiso 1981(3)SA293(A)

I

BobergPQR(1964)81SALJ501 VanderMerweNJ(1963)26THRHR291. Curadvvult. Postea(June1).J 2005(6)SAp218

Judgment FarlamJA:

A

Introduction [1]ThisisanappealagainstthedismissalbyFronemanJ,sittingintheEastLondonCircuitLocalDivisionoftheHighCourt,ofaspecialplea raisedbytheappellantagainstaclaimbroughtbytherespondent,inhiscapacityasfatherandnaturalguardianofhisminordaughter,

©2018JutaandCompany(Pty)Ltd.

Downloaded:FriMar04202213:12:47GMT+0200(SouthAfricaStandardTime)

ZukhanyeMtati,intermsofart40oftheAgreementsetBoutintheScheduletotheMultilateralMotorVehicleAccidentsFundAct93of1989. (Referencesinwhatfollowsto'theAct'arereferencestoAct93of1989.) Pleadings

C

[2]InhisparticularsofclaimtherespondentclaimedanamountofR1365580fromtheappellant,allegingthatacollisiontookplaceon20 December1989inEastLondonbetweenamotorvehicle,whichwasbeingnegligentlydrivenatthetimebyoneDlalo,andtherespondent's wife,whowasapedestrian.Asaresultofthecollision,itwasalleged,therespondent'swife,whowasthen D pregnantwithZukhanye, sustainedseriousbodilyinjuries.Zukhanyewasbornsomefiveandahalfmonthsafterthecollision.Itisallegedintheparticularsofclaimthat shehasbraindamageandismentallyretardedandthatthisbraindamageandmentalretardationaroseoutof E  theinjuriessustainedbyher motherasaresultofthecollision. [3]Theappellant'sspecialplearestsontwobases. [4]Thefirstiswhatiscontendedtobetheproperconstructionofart40oftheAgreement,whichreadsasfollows:F 'TheMMF[ie,theMultilateralMotorVehicleAccidentsFund,thepredecessoroftheappellant]oritsappointedagent,asthecasemaybe,shallsubjecttothe provisionsofthisAgreement,beobligedtocompensateanypersonwhomsoever(inthisAgreementcalledthethirdparty)foranylossordamagewhichthe thirdpartyhassufferedasaresultofG (a)anybodilyinjurytohimself; (b)thedeathoforanybodilyinjurytoanyperson, ineithercasecausedbyorarisingoutofthedrivingofamotorvehiclebyanypersonwhomsoeveratanyplacewithintheareaofjurisdictionoftheMembersof theMMF,iftheinjuryordeathisduetothenegligenceorotherunlawfulactofthepersonwhodrovetheH motorvehicle(inthisAgreementcalledthedriver)or oftheownerofthemotorvehicleorhisservantintheexecutionofhisduty.'

Theappellantcontendsinitsspecialpleathat,astherespondent'sminorchildwasatthetimeofthecollisionafoetusinutero,shewasnot, onwhatiscalleda'properconstruction'ofart40,a'person'entitledtocompensation.I [5]Thesecondbasisforthespecialpleaisanavermentthat'afoetusinuteroisnotinlawregardedasapersonandinthecircumstancesthe insureddrivercannotbesaidtohaveowedadutyofcaretoZukhanye'.J 2005(6)SAp219

FARLAMJA Earlierdecisiononissueraisedinthiscase

A

[6]SomeofthelegalissueswhichariseinthiscasecamebeforethisCourtfordecisioninAugust1963whenanappealfromthejudgmentof HiemstraJinPinchinandAnotherNOvSantamInsuranceCoLtd 1963(2)SA254(W)wasargued.ThisCourtwassatisfiedthatHiemstraJhad correctlydecidedthattheplaintiffsinthecasebeforehimhadnotsucceededinprovingthattheinjurieswhichthemother B sustainedinthe collisionwhichgaverisetothatcasehadcausedcerebralpalsyfromwhichherchildbornsubsequenttothecollisionwassuffering.Itwasthus unnecessaryforthisCourttodecidewhetherHiemstraJwasrightinholdingthatachildhasanactioninourlawtorecoverdamagesfor prenatalinjuries.SeePinchinandAnotherNOvSantamInsuranceCoLtd 1963(4)SA666(A).HiemstraJ's C  judgmentinPinchin'scasehas beenquotedwithapprovalinjudgmentsinAustralia(see WattvRama[1972]VR353(FC),adecisionoftheSupremeCourtofVictoria,at 360),andinEngland(seeBurtonvIslingtonHealthAuthority;DeMartellvMertonandSuttonHealthAuthority[1992]3AllER833(CA)at840f   g).Ithasalsobeendiscussedinleading D textbookspublishedinAustralia(seeFleming TheLawofTorts9ed182)andEngland(see CharlesworthandPercyonNegligence10ed88).Mostofthelegalreviewarticlesinwhichithasbeendiscussedarelistedinwhatamountsto amonographonthelegalissuesarisingfordecisioninthiscase,publishedasafootnote(fn15at338,presumablythelongestfootnotein SouthAfricanE legalhistory)inVanHeerdenetalBoberg'sLawofPersonsandtheFamily2ed(1999).Inanearlierfootnote(fn12at323), itispointedoutthattheproblemarisingforconsiderationinthiscaseisaninternationaloneandreferenceismadeto'thevastliteratureon thisvexingsubject'.Twocontributionsaresingled Foutforparticularmention,thearticlebySirPercyWinfield'TheUnbornChild'publishedin (1942)8CambridgeLJ76andthedissertationbyDavidAGordonSC'TheUnbornPlaintiff'publishedin(1965)12JofForensicMedicine111and 152,(1966)13JofForensicMedicine23(anabridgedversionofthisdissertation,publishedin(1965)63MichLRev579,wascitedinWattv Rama(supra)at358).TotheG extensivelistofwritingsonthetopiclistedinthesecondeditionofBoberg,Iwishmerelytoaddreferencesto articlesbyPALovellandRHGriffithJones(1974)90 LQR531andProfessorPeterFCane(1977)51 AustralianLJ704;thedoctoral dissertationsbyPCSmitDiePosisievandieOngeboreneindieSuidAfrikaanseRegmetBesondereAandagaandie H Nasciturusleerstuk(1976, UniversityoftheOrangeFreeState)andPJJOlivierLegalFictions:anAnalysisandEvaluation(1973,UniversityofLeiden)11923and153 4;thetranslatedmaterialscollectedandannotatedbySirBasilMarkesinisinAComparativeIntroductiontotheGermanLawofTorts3ed39 40and13042,andtheannotationon'LiabilityforPrenatalInjuries'publishedin40ALR3d1222etseq.I [7]Inconcludingthatachildhasanactionforinjuriessustainedwhileafoetus,HiemstraJappliedthesocallednasciturusfictionderivedfrom Romanlawtotheeffectthatanunbornchild,ifsubsequentlybornalive,isconsideredasalreadyinexistencewheneveritsownadvantageisJ 2005(6)SAp220

FARLAMJA concerned(see,eg,Digest1.5.7),holdingthatthisrulenotonlyappliedtoA questionsofsuccessionandstatusbutcouldalsobeextendedto thelawofdelict.Incomingtothisconclusionhestronglyrelied,interalia,onMontrealTramwaysCovLeveille[1933]4DLR337(SCC),a decisionoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainanappealfromQuebec,andthearticlebySirPercyWinfieldtowhichIhavealreadyreferred.B [8]Theratioofhisjudgmentonthepointpresentlyatissueappearsat260AC,asfollows: 'Iholdthatachilddoeshaveanactiontorecoverdamagesforprenatalinjuries.ThisruleisbasedontheruleoftheRomanlaw,receivedintoourlaw,thatan unbornchild,ifsubsequentlybornalive,isdeemedtohavealltherightsofabornchild,wheneverthisistoitsadvantage.Thereisapparentlynoreasontolimit thisruleC tothelawofpropertyandtoexcludeitfromthelawofdelict.'

[9]ThePinchincasewasanactionbroughtunders11oftheMotorVehicleInsuranceAct29of1942which,asfaraswasmaterial,provided thataregisteredinsurancecompany(suchasthedefendantinthatcase)hadtocompensateD 'anypersonwhatsoever(inthissectioncalledthethirdparty)foranylossordamagewhichthethirdpartyhassufferedasaresultof (a)anybodilyinjurytohimself; (b)thedeathoforanybodilyinjurytoanyperson, ineithercasecausedbyorarisingoutofthedrivingoftheinsuredvehicle...'.E

(Ascanbeseen,thissectionwasinparimateriawithart40oftheMMFAgreement.) [10]Havingpointedout(at256A)thattheword'person'wasnotdefined,HiemstraJsaidthatithadthereforetobear'itsordinarycommonlaw meaning'.Hecontinued:F 'Whetherthefoetusisa''person''ornot,seemstometobeirrelevantifthelegalfictionappliesthatitistoberegardedasifitisalreadybornwheneverthis shouldbetoitsadvantage.'

Heaccordinglyheldthattheplaintiff'sminorsonhadanactionunders11ofAct29of1942.G JudgmentinCourtaquo [11]InhisjudgmentintheCourtaquoFronemanJacceptedthatthePinchindecisionwascorrectandthat,asheputit: '(T)heActandthecommonlawmustthereforebeapproachedinthecontextofthequalifiedprinciplesetoutabove,namelytoregard,H whenappropriate,a

©2018JutaandCompany(Pty)Ltd.

Downloaded:FriMar04202213:12:47GMT+0200(SouthAfricaStandardTime)

foetusasapersonwhenuponbirthitistohisorheradvantage.Therealanddifficultquestionistodeterminewhenthecircumstancesareappropriateandwhen theyarenot.'

[12]ThelearnedJudgeheldthatitwasappropriatetoapplythe nasciturusruleinthiscase.Amongthefactorswhichled I himtothis conclusionwasthefactthatAct93of1989was 'sociallegislationaimedatthewidestpossibleprotectionandcompensationagainstlossanddamagesforthenegligentdrivingofamotorvehicle(compareSA EagleInsuranceCoLtdvPretorius 1998(2)SA656(SCA)659I660O).Toalargeextentitrepresents...anembodimentofthecommonlawactionsrelating J

2005(6)SAp221

FARLAMJA todamagesforbodilyinjuryandlossofsupportcausedbyorarisingfromthenegligentA drivingofamotorvehicle(EvinsvShieldInsuranceCoLtd[1980(2) SA814(A)],841E).'

[13]Heheldthatadutyofcarecouldbeowedtoafoetusandthattherewasnosubstanceintheargumentraisedonbehalfofthepresent appellantthatafindingonthispointinfavouroftherespondentwould,tousethefamiliarcliché,'openthefloodgatesoflitigation'.B [14]EarlierinhisjudgmentthelearnedJudgedealtwithasubmissionadvancedbycounselfortheappellant,whotookashisstartingpoint whatwascalledthe'ordinarygrammaticalmeaning'oftheword'person', viz'ahumanbeing'asdistinguished,amongstotherthings,froma stillbornchild,anunbornchildorafoetus.Forthissubmissioncounselhadreliedonthedecisionofthis C CourtinVanHeerdenandAnotherv JoubertNOandOthers 1994(4)SA793(A)inwhichitwasheldthatthemeaningoftheword'person'asusedintheInquestsAct58of1959 doesnotincludeastillbornbaby,withtheresultthataninquestintothedeathofastill...