Woman awarded R1.3 million by Road Accident Fund for loss of earnings

A GAUTENG woman who took on the Road Accident Fund(RAF) after she suffered injuries in a collision that impacted her working capabilities, was awarded more than R1.3 million for her loss of past and future earnings. 

According to the judgment handed down in the South Gauteng High Court last week, Haseena Mossa, instituted court action against the RAF due to injuries sustained during the collision on November 28 in 2020. 

At the time of the collision, Mossa was 25 years old and employed as a data capturer at a laboratory since 2016. 

According to the judgment, the merits of the matter was settled, with the RAF accepting 100% liability for her proven or agreed damages. 

However, the only issue was the quantum of damages in respect of loss of past and future earnings. 

According to the court papers, Mossa testified that she sustained multiple injuries, including lacerations requiring stitches to her left arm, swelling of the right knee, soft tissue injuries consistent with whiplash, a concussion, loss of consciousness, and temporary memory loss. 

She further testified that she was hospitalised for two weeks following the collision.

Mossa said before the accident she was employed full-time, performing various duties, including DNA, stock control, loading results, attending to wards and reception work. 

She added that she “was considered an exemplary worker and often worked long hours, including weekends”.

Mossa said after the accident she suffered significant physical limitations and psychological symptoms such anxiety, depression, and insomnia. 

She said the impact on her daily life, included  being unable to attend the gym, swim, or socialise with friends and family. 

She also expressed embarrassment about the visible scarring on her body and that she avoided exposing those areas. 

She further testified that she intended to pursue further studies but no longer felt capable. 

Mossa said that she had lost her independence and relied heavily on others for everyday tasks. She also fears showering due to dizziness and a constant fear of falling.

She said after the accident her working hours were reduced which adversely affected her salary due to the loss of overtime income. She was also reassigned to lighter duties at work, which affected her confidence and promotional prospects. 

She ultimately resigned in August 2023, citing physical exhaustion, pain, and an inability to cope. 

She said she was currently unemployed and was unable to secure new work. 

Mossa added that in her current condition, she was not able to return to the workforce. 

Her mother who also testified said prior to the accident her daughter was “vibrant, outgoing, and ambitious”. 

When asked about her daughter's earlier challenges, including a diagnosis of endometriosis and the death by suicide of her boyfriend, she acknowledged that these events caused temporary emotional distress. However, she maintained that Mossa had coped with those difficulties well. 

Mr Teixeira-Ferreira, a clinical psychologist, who testified on behalf of Mossa, said she had exhibited certain pre-morbid psychological vulnerabilities which, while not disabling, were relevant to her post-accident presentation. 

These included her diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, and the emotional trauma associated with the death of her partner.

Teixeira-Ferreira  said while Mossa, in psychological terms, was a “vulnerable individual”, she had shown resilience in navigating these difficulties before the accident.

He described the collision as a “watershed moment” in Mossa's life and that the trauma compounded her pre-existing vulnerability. 

He said, in his view, Mossa’s  current psychological challenges, including chronic pain, emotional dysfunction, reduced stress tolerance, and diminished self-esteem, were directly linked to the consequences of the collision. 

Teixeira-Ferreira added that these impairments undermined her ability to perform her occupational duties and to progress professionally. 

Mr de Vlamingh, an industrial psychologist, said while he acknowledged Mossa’s pre-existing medical conditions, these did not impair her pre-accident work functioning. 

He said she had maintained steady employment for several years, performing her duties effectively. 

De Vlamingh said he observed that Mossa  had ambition and had expressed a realistic desire to further her career by training as a phlebotomist. 

He said at the time of the collision, she was positioned to pursue this goal, having acquired relevant experience and shown an interest in formal qualifications. 

When asked what prevented her from pursuing this goal after the accident, De Vlamingh testified that Mossa could no longer cope in the required working environment. 

De Vlamingh said while he accepted that Mossa would likely remain in the workforce until the retirement age of 65, it would be in a reduced capacity. 

He testified that while her knee and arm injuries had a good prognosis, her spinal injuries were more serious and likely to persist. 

De Vlamingh said these injuries would impair her ability to sit or remain in static postures for extended periods and significantly impact her occupational functioning. 

He further testified that Mossa’s resignation in 2023 was a justifiable decision in light of her physical and emotional limitations. However, while she was not unemployable, she would require a modified work environment. 

There were also other expert reports including those of an orthopaedic surgeon, plastic surgeon, neurosurgeon, and occupational therapist submitted to the court. 

Judge WJ du Plessis, in her judgement said in delictual claims for patrimonial loss, such as the present one involving past and future loss of earnings, the plaintiff (Mossa) must establish the existence of a diminished earning capacity due to the injuries sustained in the collision. 

“Claims for personal injury damages often present complex causation questions, particularly where a plaintiff's post-accident deficits appear to arise from the injuries sustained in the accident and a pre-existing condition or vulnerability. This is typically the case where the accident acts as a trigger or catalyst for a previously controlled condition. In such circumstances, there is a temptation to apportion liability between the accident and the underlying condition.”

Du Plessis said what emerged from the testimonies of the experts and Mossa herself was that she was not completely incapacitated but rather less emotionally resilient. 

“The plaintiff has insight into her condition and receives support from her mother. However, her prognosis remains guarded. While psychological rehabilitation may lead to improvement, the likelihood of her returning to pre-accident functioning, while not impossible, is not a given. 

“She is no longer competitively placed in the open labour market and would require a tailored, low-stress environment to re-enter the workforce. This diminished capacity, although not absolute, justifies a conservative approach to post-accident earnings, as set out by the industrial psychologist. 

“The court accepts the submissions of the plaintiff's counsel that her subsequent resignation from employment, while perhaps not strictly necessary, was informed by the sequelae of the accident. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to be compensated not for what she might have become in idealised circumstances but for the realistic career trajectory she has lost having regard to her actual condition both before and after the incident,” she said. 

It was ordered that the RAF pay the total proven loss of income of R1 336 105, as well as interest at the rate of 11.25% per annum - calculated from the payment date to the date of final payment. The RAF were ordered to pay Mossa within 180 days. 

THE POST