[imagesource: iStock]

At six weeks old, a child lost a part of his big toe in a car accident with his mother in 2010.

The boy, now 12, has lived most of his life without the tip of his big toe.

This has distressed the mother, who has been in a legal battle with the Road Accident Fund (RAF), claiming damages and asking that they pay a small fortune out to her and her son.

The mother, on behalf of her son, instituted a claim of more than R5 million to the High Court in Joburg.

You could say that Judge Rean Strydom has put his foot down, per IOL:

Since the mother instituted a damages claim against the RAF in 2012, future loss of earnings capacity escalated from R500 000 to R5 411 949 [general damages were settled between the parties in an amount of R550 000].

The court was told that the liability of the RAF was settled and was not an issue as it was prepared to provide the undertaking for future medical expenses.

The mother was unable to sufficiently justify why the tip of her son’s amputated toe was worth more than R5 million, and thus the order for RAF to foot the legal bills of the medical experts was rejected.

On the argument that the child is entitled to be compensated for future loss of earnings and incapacity due to his toe (the child is an avid football player), the judge ruled he had suffered “no major lasting effects following the accident”.

An orthopaedic surgeon examined and assessed the child in February last year and found that no future surgical treatment was necessary, only perhaps the need to wear special shoes if anything.

The mother tried to cite another incident of trauma suffered by the minor child to plead her case, bringing up the time her son was hit by a taxi while crossing the road in 2020, and also argued that he was afraid of cars, had anger issues, and did not perform well in school.

But the court said none of that could be attributed to the toe incident and could be due to numerous other factors.

Basically, because the mother’s case “relied too heavily on inference and speculation to support the claim of the child”, her claims were kicked to the curb.

[source:iol]