Gebeurlikhede in die deliktuele skadevergoedingsreg

Abstract

OPSOMMING

Gebeurlikhede kan omskryf word as onsekere omstandighede van positiewe of negatiewe aard wat, onafhanklik van die verweerder se optrede en indien dit sou realiseer, waarskynlik 'n persoon se gesondheid, inkomste, verdienvermoë, lewenskwaliteit, lewensverwagting of onderhoudsafhanklikheid in die toekoms kan beïnvloed of in die verlede kon beïnvloed het en wat gevolglik op billike en realistiese wyse in ag geneem moet word ter bepaling van die skadevergoedingsbedrag. Die skadevergoedingsbedrag kan vanweë gebeurlikhede verminder of vermeerder word waar die eiser wel met `n oorwig van waarskynlikheid die volle omvang van die skade bewys het, maar die hof nie kon oortuig dat geen ander oorsaak die skade waarskynlik ook sou kon veroorsaak nie (sg "gebeurlikheids-aanpassings"). In gevalle waar die eiser nie die volle omvang van die skade op `n oorwig van waarskynlikheid kon bewys nie, kan die hof nogtans `n verminderde bedrag toeken op grond van die gebeurlikheid dat die skade wel waarskynlik in die toekoms kan realiseer (sg "gebeurlikheidstoekennings"). Die eiser moet getuienis voorlê van gebeurlikhede wat die skadevergoedingsbedrag sal verhoog, en die verweerder van gebeurlikhede wat die skadevergoedingsbedrag sal verlaag. Die waarskynlikheid dat die gebeurlikheid sal realiseer, moet deur die hof aan die hand van objektiewe maatstawwe en op grond van feitelike bewerings en logiese afleidings uit deskundige en ander getuienis in die vorm van `n waarskynlikheidsgraad van tussen vyf persent en tagtig persent uitgedruk word. Hipotetiese kousaliteit word deur die hof aangewend om gebeurlikhede op `n billike wyse in ag te neem en verwys na die kousale ketting van hipotetiese feite wat waarskynlik sou gerealiseer het indien die skadestigtende gebeurtenis nie plaasgevind het nie. Gebeurlikhede kan in twee kategorieë geklassifiseer word: Algemene gebeurlikhede wat gewoonlik in enige stadium by alle persone kan voorkom (bv vroeë dood, siekte ens) en spesifieke gebeurlikhede wat gewoonlik op spesifieke tydstippe by spesifieke individue kan voorkom (bv hertroue, egskeiding ens). Terwyl die hof geregtelik kennis behoort te kan neem van die invloed van algemene gebeurlikhede, behoort die hof hoofsaaklik op grond van ondersteunende getuienis van die invloed van spesifieke gebeurlikhede oortuig te word. Algemene gebeurlikheidsaanpassings is gewoonlik relatief laag (gemiddeld tien persent), terwyl gebeurlikheidsaanpassings vir spesifieke gebeurlikhede fluktueer (gewoonlik tussen vyf persent en vyftig persent), afhangende van die getuienis en omstandighede van die eiser. Gebeurlikheidstoekennings is gewoonlik laer as vyftig persent.

SUMMARY

Contingencies can be described as uncertain circumstances of a positive or negative nature which, independent of the defendant's conduct and if it should realise, would probably influence a person's health, income, earning capacity, quality of life, life expectancy or dependency on support in future or could have done so in the past, and which must consequently be taken into account in a fair and realistic manner in the quantification of damages. Contingencies can be used to increase or reduce damages in circumstances where the plaintiff succeeded in proving the full loss on a preponderance of probability, but could not convince the court that there was no probability that any other cause could also have given rise to the loss (so-called "contingency adjustments"). In circumstances where the plaintiff could not prove the full loss on a preponderance of probability, the court can nevertheless award a reduced amount on the basis of the contingency that loss could probably realise in future (so-called "contingency allowances"). The plaintiff must adduce evidence of contingencies that can increase damages, and the defendant of contingencies that can reduce damages. The degree of probability that the contingency will realise, must be expressed by the court as a percentage of between five percent and eighty percent, in view of objective measures and on the basis of factual allegations and logical deductions derived from expert and other evidence. Hypothetical causation assists the court in taking account of contingencies in a fair manner and refers to the causal link of hypothetical events which would probably have realised if the damage-causing event did not occur. Contingencies can be classified into two categories: General contingencies that usually can be present in the lives of all people at any point in time (eg early death, sickness, etc) and specific contingencies that usually are present in the lives of specific individuals at specific times (eg remarriage, divorce, etc). While the court should be able to take legal notice of the influence of general contingencies, the court should be convinced of the influence of specific contingencies primarily on the basis of supporting evidence. General contingency adjustments are usually relatively low (on average ten per cent), while contingency adjustments for specific contingencies fluctuate (usually between five per cent and fifty per cent), depending on the evidence and circumstances of the plaintiff. Contingency allowances are usually lower than fifty per cent.