The Road Accident Fund Amendment Act was promulgated with effect from August 1 2008. The much-disputed legislative amendments are intended to provide a more “equitable, fair and transparent [resource] for the victims of road accidents,” over and above ensuring the sustainability of the fund. This all seem justified — or is it?
These legislative amendments appear to have been triggered by the massive payout of R500-million to a certain Swiss resident, Joachim Schoss. The fund contends that the current compensation system is not sustainable and therefore it is in the interest of road-accident victims that limits be introduced for loss of earnings and support as well as general damages. Claims will be limited to a maximum of R160 000 a year for loss of income, or R160 000 a year for each deceased breadwinner in the case of a claim for loss of support.
I am not sure whether fairness exists there, as claimants earning more than R160 000 a year will be left worse off than they were prior to the accident. They will be unable to recover damages for future economic loss as result of the accident. Common law suggests that the injured party receive compensation that would restore him or her to the position in he or she was prior to the accident.
With such ridiculous limits on annual compensation, many road-accident victims whose injuries left them permanently incapacitated would be in a more unfavourable position than before. The RAF should not hoodwink the public into believing these amendments are to serve their best interest. The amendments are designed to serve no other interest but that of the RAF.
The most contentious amendment appears to be the payment of compensation directly into the road-accident victim’s bank account instead of the lawyer’s account. Lawyers affiliated to the Law Society of South Africa took the matter to court, claiming that such an amendment would make it difficult for attorneys to represent victims of road accidents.
The lawyers advanced a silly argument in court that insinuated that victims of road accidents have a natural disposition to squander the money received from the fund and that legal fees may not be paid. It is unfortunate that Judge Jeanette Traverso ruled in favour of the lawyers, who during presentation of their arguments insulted victims of road accidents and undermined their intelligence.
There is nothing in the amendment that suggests that lawyers will not receive their legal fees directly from the fund; therefore, their insisting on receiving full compensation on behalf of accident victims raises suspicion. It is common knowledge that thousands of road-accident victims have fallen prey to crooked lawyers who fleeced them of their compensation by charging exorbitant legal fees.
The lawyers claim that the implementation of this amendment would leave them no option but to forgo the contingency-fee arrangement that is common practice in such legal matters. Their arguments are absolute rubbish since they would still be guaranteed their legal fees, as the fund would pay such fees directly to them.
It is not any noble intentions that governed the high court action by lawyers to maintain the status quo. These lawyers also want us, the public, to believe that their contestation of one particular amendment is in our best interest when, in fact, the court action was intended to protect their own interests and leave victims of road accidents at the mercy of unscrupulous lawyers.
This laborious legal wrangling between the RAF and the Law Society of South Africa is nothing but a feigned representation of concern for victims of road accidents; the consequence is simply a gross injustice to every road user. The intentions of both parties are contemptible and must be condemned.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
