The Free State High Court ruled that the farmer faces a real risk of becoming physically unable to continue agricultural activities even before his planned early retirement.
A farmer from the Free State, who previously worked from five in the morning until evening, won a loss of earnings lawsuit against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). This followed an accident that deprived him of the ability to perform a significant part of the physical labor upon which his livelihood depends.
In the court ruling, the farmer, identified as Mr. Stemmett, sustained injuries in a collision on the N5 highway between Bethlehem and Polars. The incident occurred in November 2011.
Although the RAF accepted 100% liability for the proven damages, loss of earnings, and corresponding contingency deductions, the final amounts still needed to be determined. Issues regarding general compensation and future medical expenses had already been settled.
Stemmett grew up on the farm and dedicated most of his working life to agriculture. He started working for himself around 2007, earning income from working on his father's land, livestock maintenance, and the trade of animal products.
Before the accident, Stemmett performed almost all the work independently, including feeding and caring for several hundred head of livestock. He typically worked from 5 am until 6 or 7 pm. After the accident, he had to hire workers because he was no longer physically capable of performing this work.
Injuries Sustained
Medical evidence presented to the court showed that Stemmett suffers from daily pain in his ankles and feet. Tasks such as prolonged standing and walking, squatting, lifting heavy objects, climbing equipment, and driving a tractor cause pain and difficulty.
Both ankles developed post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and the condition is expected to worsen. An orthopedic surgeon recommended that Stemmett completely cease physical labor and instead work permanently in a light or sedentary position.
Judge Van Zill considered this recommendation not a realistic option. The Judge noted: 'The plaintiff is a farmer, and he earns a living doing exactly that.' The court also took into account that Stemmett's injuries affected his farm's potential to generate income due to reduced productivity and additional costs for hiring workers.
The RAF insisted on lower payouts for future income risks, partly based on the fact that he continued to run a profitable farm for many years after the accident. However, Van Zill rejected this argument, stating: 'It is evident from the expert evidence that the plaintiff carries a real risk of becoming physically disabled to continue farming even before the early retirement age.'
Discrepancies in Calculations
The Free State High Court established that the farmer is under a real threat of physical inability to continue farming even before the expected early retirement. However, the amount the RAF must pay has not yet been calculated.
Munro Actuaries preliminarily calculated the capital value of the plaintiff's loss of earnings at R7.2 million before applying the RAF limit, using a 15% reserve in the no-injury scenario and 55% in the injury scenario. After applying the limit, this figure was reduced by 43.24% to R4 million.
The court ruled different figures: when calculating Stemmett's presumed earnings without the accident, an 8% deduction will be applied, and in the injury scenario, 45%. The actuarial calculation was based on a retirement age of 67.5 years in the no-injury scenario and 55 years in the injury scenario.
Munro Forensic Actuaries must now recalculate the losses based on the new figures. The resulting sum can then be formalized as a court order. Furthermore, the RAF is obliged to cover Stemmett's legal costs, including the fees of nine expert witnesses.