- A father injured in a motorcycle accident later died by suicide while claiming from the Road Accident Fund.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed that the crash injuries contributed to his death.
- Despite this, his widow and daughters could not claim further damages for loss of support.
After years of pain, legal battles and financial strain, a family’s hope for justice has ended in disappointment.
A court recognised that a father’s accident injuries played a role in his suicide, but ultimately decided that the law does not hold the Road Accident Fund (RAF) responsible for the loss his family has suffered.
The case focused on a man who was seriously injured in a motorcycle collision on 21 June 2014. He suffered fractures to his right leg and pelvis, soft tissue injuries and a mild concussive injury. Surgeons inserted a steel plate and screws into his leg, and his recovery lasted about eight to nine months.
Although he returned to work, the injuries left him with ongoing pain and permanent physical limitations. The court heard that he struggled to bend, crouch, stand for long periods and perform heavy physical work.
Before his death, the deceased had already instituted a claim against the RAF for damages arising from the collision. After he died in December 2016, the executor of his estate continued with that claim. In November 2018, the High Court in Pretoria ordered, by agreement between the parties, that the RAF pay over R1 million to the deceased's estate, with liability apportioned at 80 percent in favour of the estate.
The dispute before the Supreme Court of Appeal involved a different claim. In January 2018, the deceased's widow instituted proceedings in her personal capacity and on behalf of the couple's two daughters, seeking damages for loss of support arising from his death.
A determined breadwinner
Evidence before the court painted a picture of a man determined to provide for his family despite significant challenges.
The deceased had qualified as a plumber and previously operated a successful plumbing business. Before the collision, however, the business had already suffered a major setback after losing an important service contract. He then turned his attention to refurbishing caravans and later secured work installing well points during the severe Western Cape drought.
His wife described him as “resilient and resourceful,” explaining that “he always found ways to support his family when circumstances became difficult.” His mother gave similar evidence, telling the court that he “preferred to cope with problems himself rather than seek help.”
The court heard that the accident nevertheless changed aspects of his life. Physical pain limited his activities, affected his social life and created frustration. Family members observed that he became less engaged in activities he had once enjoyed and increasingly expressed anger about his physical condition.
On 6 December 2016, while involved in a substantial well point installation project, he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
What the experts said
Several experts testified about the impact of the collision. An orthopaedic surgeon confirmed that the injuries were serious and likely to result in long-term physical difficulties. An occupational therapist concluded that the deceased's ability to perform the type of work he had undertaken before the accident had been significantly reduced.
Psychological evidence proved more contentious. One psychologist concluded that the deceased's suicide was directly linked to the accident and its consequences. Another psychologist called by the RAF disagreed, cautioning that it was “impossible to determine with certainty why the deceased had taken his own life” and noting that there was no evidence that he suffered from a diagnosable mental illness.
The appeal court ultimately found that the deceased experienced genuine emotional distress linked to his injuries and changing circumstances. Judges accepted that the physical injuries, pain and limitations contributed to his frustration, anger and despair.
In the judgment, Judge G Goosen wrote, “The evidence, particularly that regarding the deceased's resilience and his determination to provide for his family, suggests that it is improbable that, in the absence of the compounding effect of the deceased's injuries and his distress, the deceased would have taken his life.”
Why the family still lost
Although the court accepted that the collision contributed to the chain of events leading to the suicide, it found that this did not automatically make the RAF legally liable.
The judges distinguished between factual causation and legal causation. They held that the injuries were a factual cause of the circumstances that culminated in the death. However, the law required a further inquiry into whether liability should fairly be imposed for the consequences of that death.
The court found that the deceased did not suffer from a recognised mental illness that impaired his judgment or deprived him of the ability to make decisions for himself.
Judge Goosen said, “He was capable of exercising his free will, and there was no evidence that he did not or could not appreciate the consequences of his conduct.”
Because the deceased retained his autonomy and capacity for self-determination, the court concluded that the suicide constituted a new intervening act that broke the legal chain connecting the original collision to the family's loss.
The judges also noted that more than two years had passed between the accident and the suicide and that there was no evidence showing that such an outcome would have been reasonably foreseeable.
Judge Goosen concluded, “The deceased's decision to commit suicide cannot be said to have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the wrongdoer's wrongful and negligent conduct.”
While expressing sympathy for the widow and daughters, the court found that the law did not permit recovery of loss of support damages in the circumstances. “However sympathetic we might be to the innocent survivors of the tragedy, the claim cannot be sustained,” Judge Goosen said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the RAF's appeal and dismissed the family's claim with costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
