In a July 2025 judgment, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, clarified that a physical disability does not automatically entitle a claimant to damages for loss of earning capacity. The court refused the plaintiff’s claim for such damages, emphasising that the mere existence of an injury is not sufficient to establish a financial loss.
The plaintiff, was involved in a motor vehicle collision on 22 August 2016, resulting in a fractured left humerus. At the time of the accident, he was employed as a shift commander, a role that is predominantly office-based and supported by a team of ten employees.
The court highlighted that the onus is on the claimant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the disability has actually impacted their ability to earn and that this impact will result in a real financial loss. The court is not bound to accept expert opinions that are not supported by the facts. In this case, the evidence showed that the plaintiff’s duties did not require heavy physical work, and his prospects for advancement remained unchanged. His employer confirmed that his career progression had not been affected and that he remained eligible for promotion to the position of station manager.
The court referred to the legal position established in previous cases, that a physical disability impacting the capacity to earn an income does not, on its own, reduce the patrimony of the injured party. There must be proof that the reduction in income-earning capacity will result in an actual loss of income. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that his physical disability would lead to a reduction in his income or patrimony.
The court noted that the plaintiff was not a vulnerable employee facing potential dismissal, which would render him an unequal competitor in the open market. He was in a position to work until the retirement age of 60 years, and his ability to progress in his work was not affected. The opinion of the orthopaedic surgeon was predicated on the plaintiff’s work as a firefighter, which involves carrying heavy objects, rather than his role as a shift commander and potentially a station manager.
As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not lost his earning capacity according to the available evidence. The court’s decision serves as a reminder that the link between disability and financial loss must be established with concrete evidence, not assumed.
Maredi v Road Accident Fund (6713/18) [2025] ZAGPPHC 641 (20 June 2025)