A traditional healer’s income loss claim in a recent High Court case highlighted the complexities of compensating for personal injuries.
In Tjiane v Road Accident Fund [2024] 52384-2021 (GP), it decided a case involving a traditional healer. The healer sustained multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident, reducing his earning capacity significantly.
The court illustrated the legal principles used to determine compensation for loss of income in physically demanding professions.
The complexity of income loss claims
The plaintiff, a traditional healer, earned R7,000.00 monthly before a motor vehicle accident on 7 April 2018.
The accident caused multiple injuries and psychological trauma, including PTSD, and soft tissue injuries to his back, knee and buttocks. He relied on assistance due to pre-existing visual impairment to perform his duties.
After the accident, his income reduced to R4,500.00 as his workload decreased significantly. Consequently, he saw fewer patients and needed frequent rest breaks, affecting his assistant’s ability to assist him regularly.
Assessment of income loss claims
The court assessed the impact of the plaintiff’s physical and psychological impairments on his professional duties. His injuries hindered essential tasks like climbing mountains, gathering herbs, and performing physically demanding rituals. Furthermore, PTSD and depression worsened his ability to work effectively.
The plaintiff engaged medical experts to evaluate his injuries and substantiate his claim. The experts demonstrated how his accident-related impairments reduced his ability to perform as a traditional healer and caused a significant income decline.
Expert opinion
- The psychiatrist stated that the plaintiff’s emotional and psychological state affected his ability to conduct lengthy patient sessions.
- The occupational therapist noted the plaintiff could only perform light work post-accident, limiting his duties.
- The industrial psychologist calculated pre-accident annual earnings at R84,000.00 and post-accident earnings at R54,000.00. They recommended contingency deductions to reflect the increased risk of further income loss.
Court rulings on contingency deductions
The court considered the plaintiff’s impairments when calculating his loss of income. It acknowledged his inability to return to full-capacity work as a traditional healer.
The defendant proposed a 25% pre-morbid contingency deduction, citing the plaintiff’s visual impairment and uncertainties. However, the court deemed this excessive and applied a 15% deduction to account for uncertainties.
The court awarded R1,062,887.00 in total loss, with R263,693.00 for past loss of earnings and R799,194.00 for future loss. It acknowledged the plaintiff’s dependency on assistance, physical pain and psychological difficulties limiting his workability.
In conclusion
This case highlights how courts assess loss of income for professionals whose work involves physical labour. Expert opinions are crucial in determining the extent of loss and appropriate compensation for victims.
Mpumelelo Ndlela | Associate | Adams & Adams | mail me |