- High Court in Cape Town awards R4.76 million to a crash victim for future loss of earnings.
- The court rejects a higher R6 million claim and prefers the RAF’s actuarial calculations.
- Judgment confirms that in-house RAF experts are not automatically excluded just because they work for the RAF.
A young woman whose dream of becoming a teacher was shattered by a hit-and-run collision has been awarded R4.76 million in compensation for future loss of earnings. The High Court in Cape Town found that her injuries have permanently limited her ability to earn a living.
Acting Judge F Moosa delivered the judgment on 13 July 2026. The parties had already settled liability and general damages, leaving only the value of the plaintiff’s future loss of earnings in dispute.
The plaintiff, who was 16 when the accident happened on 1 March 2020, was struck by a hit-and-run minibus while walking on the pavement in Gugulethu. She suffered severe orthopaedic injuries, including fractures to her right tibia and fibula, facial injuries that left permanent scarring, and cognitive challenges that affected her education and future career.
How the accident changed her career path
Before the crash, the plaintiff had set her sights on qualifying as a foundation phase teacher. Evidence before the court showed she was doing well at school and planned to pursue further studies in teaching.
After the accident, however, she struggled with her studies, failed mathematics and accounting, and eventually enrolled in an office administration course, still hoping she might one day qualify as a teacher. Expert evidence showed that her physical and cognitive challenges made a teaching career unlikely and left her vulnerable in the job market.
Industrial psychologists agreed that while she was still able to work in some capacity, she had suffered a significant loss of earning potential due to her injuries.
Experts disagree about compensation
The main dispute was how much the Road Accident Fund should pay. The plaintiff argued for just over R6 million based on her actuary’s figures. The RAF said fair compensation was about R3.9 million, according to its own in-house actuary.
The plaintiff also objected to the RAF using its own actuary, arguing that because he worked for the Fund, he could not be seen as an independent expert witness. Judge Moosa dismissed that argument.
He said that working for the RAF did not automatically make an expert biased or inadmissible. The real question was whether the expert’s opinions were objective, well-reasoned, and helpful to the court.
The judge found no evidence that the RAF actuary had shaped his opinions to benefit his employer.
Court rejects inflated damages calculation
The court criticised some of the plaintiff actuary’s methods, finding that his assumptions did not match the evidence from the RAF’s industrial psychologist and that he used salary projections that overstated the plaintiff’s likely future earnings.
Judge Moosa found the RAF actuary’s approach was more logical, cautious, and in line with the evidence.
The court also stressed that awards for future loss of earnings involve predicting uncertain events and should be approached carefully to prevent unjustified claims on public funds.
Final award and costs
After applying contingency deductions of 20 percent to the plaintiff’s uninjured earning potential and 35 percent to her earning capacity after the accident, the court awarded R4,763,719.75 for future loss of earnings.
The RAF was ordered to pay the amount within 180 days, or interest would be added at the legal rate. The RAF must also pay the plaintiff’s legal costs, including costs for expert witnesses and counsel.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
