Aspekte van skadevergoeding by gebruiksverlies

Abstract

In the recent decision in Kellerman v South African Transport Services 1993 4 SA 872 (C) a claim for the loss of the use of a thing not utilised in the production of income was apparently allowed for the first time in South African law. A number of strict requirements were however set for such a claim. For a considerable time a claim has been recognised in English and German law even where a substitute was not hired and where the article was used for pleasure purposes. It is submitted that this should also be the position in South African law because the loss of the use of a thing per se has an independent value. It is further submitted that the interest on capital value method (as per English law) can be used as starting-point in the determination of quantum. A degree of flexibility is necessary to ensure fairness and equity.

In die onlangse beslissing in Kellerman v South African Transport Services 1993 4 SA 872 (K) is daar klaarblyklik die eerste maal in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg 'n eis om skadevergoeding weens gebruiksverlies van 'n saak wat nie in die produksie van inkomste gebruik is nie erken. Die hof stel egter 'n aantal streng vereistes vir so 'n eis. 'n Eis word al 'n geruime tyd in die Engelse en Duitse reg erken selfs waar 'n substituut nie gehuur is nie en waar sake bloot vir plesierdoeleindes gebruik is. Daar word submitteer dat dit ook die posisie in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg behoort te wees aangesien gebruiksverlies opsigself 'n selfstandige waarde het. Dit word verder aangevoer dat die rente-op-kapitaalwaarde-metode (soos in die Engelse reg) gebruik kan word as 'n uitgangspunt by kwantumbepaling. Ter wille van redelikheid en billikheid behoort die maatstaf 'n mate van buigsaamheid te he.