This blog is co-authored by Justine Subramoney, candidate attorney.
A July 205 High Court appeal has reinforced the principle that courts must consider all expert evidence as a whole when determining compensation in personal injury litigations (RAF) matters. This approach is crucial for both legal practitioners and claimants seeking fair outcomes in such litigation.
The claimant suffered multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought damages for loss of earnings. The lower court dismissed the quantum claim, focusing narrowly on the fact that the claimant’s fractures had healed and that there was not sufficient evidence to support a total loss of earning capacity. The court relied primarily on selected portions of the orthopaedic and radiology reports, without engaging with the broader context provided by other expert opinions.
The appeal court took a different view. It highlighted that expert witnesses—such as orthopaedic surgeons, occupational therapists, and industrial psychologists—are there to assist the court with technical matters outside the court’s expertise. Their opinions must be assessed collectively, not in isolation. While the orthopaedic surgeon confirmed that the fractures had healed, he also identified ongoing impairments, recommended further surgery, and noted that the claimant was unable to resume his previous duties. The occupational therapist and industrial psychologist both concluded that the claimant was no longer competitive in the open labour market due to persistent pain, cognitive difficulties, and physical limitations.
The court found that the lower court had misdirected itself by relying only on parts of the orthopaedic and X-ray reports, and by failing to read these in conjunction with the occupational therapist’s and industrial psychologist’s findings. The experts were unanimous that the claimant’s ability to work had been significantly compromised, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The court stressed that, before rejecting expert opinions, there must be sound and justifiable reasons for doing so. A piecemeal approach risks overlooking the cumulative impact of the claimant’s injuries and the consensus among the experts.
This judgment serves as a reminder that a holistic assessment of expert evidence is essential in personal injury claims. The parties to the dispute and, if there is litigation, the court must avoid selective reliance on individual reports and instead consider the full spectrum of expert input to ensure just and equitable outcomes for claimants.
Lejure v Road Accident Fund (HCAA26/2022, Limpopo Division, Polokwane, 25 July 2025)