Question 1 (25 marks)

Carefully read the two cases cited below, then compare and critically discuss them. In your discussion, you must focus on the similarities and differences between these two cases and explain why the outcome of the two cases differs.

The two cases are:

Cenprop Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Holtzhausen 2023 (3) SA 54
and

Williams v Pick ‘n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd and Another (8377/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 299 (1 September 2023)

Note: Both these cases are available on SAFLII and can be downloaded from this site. You may also request assistance from the STADIO librarian to get a copy of these cases. Note that the second case is not reported, but it is still available on SAFLII. The first case is reported and therefore also available in the printed Law Reports.

Marks will be awarded for your understanding of the case (10 marks), correctly identifying the legal question in each case (5 marks), as well as correctly identifying the judgment and ratio decidendi (10 marks).

Question 2 (20 marks)

I asked ChatGPT to write an answer to the following question:

Write an essay in which you critically discuss the view that notwithstanding the criticism against this rule from some academics, the “once and for all rule” is still relevant and important in the adjudication of damages in South Africa. Remember to refer to at least two decided cases in your discussion. Also, indicate how these cases changed the position regarding the OFAR in South African law.
Below you will find the answer that was generated by ChatGPT:

The “once and for all rule” (OFAR) in South African law refers to the principle that damages awarded in a civil case should be final and not subject to future adjustments or modifications. This rule has been a subject of debate among legal scholars, with some criticizing its rigidity and potential to lead to unjust outcomes. Despite these criticisms, the OFAR remains relevant and important in the adjudication of damages in South Africa for several reasons.

One of the key arguments in favor of the OFAR is the need for finality and certainty in legal proceedings. By providing a definitive resolution to the issue of damages, the rule promotes judicial efficiency and prevents prolonged litigation over the same matter. This is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that parties can move on from the dispute with a clear understanding of their rights and obligations.
Furthermore, the OFAR serves to protect defendants from the risk of multiple claims for the same injury or loss. Without this rule, plaintiffs could potentially seek to recover damages repeatedly, leading to excessive financial burdens on the defendant. By limiting the scope of damages to a single award, the OFAR helps to strike a balance between compensating the injured party and preventing unjust enrichment.
Two notable cases that have shaped the application of the OFAR in South African law are Minister of Police v Mboweni and MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhize. In the former case, the Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed the importance of the OFAR in ensuring finality and predictability in damages awards. The court held that once damages have been assessed and awarded, they should not be subject to further adjustment unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the rule.
In the latter case, the Constitutional Court considered the impact of the OFAR on the rights of victims of medical negligence. The court recognized the need to balance the principles of finality and fairness in damages awards, particularly in cases involving ongoing medical expenses and future care needs. While reaffirming the importance of the OFAR, the court emphasized the need for flexibility in its application to accommodate the unique circumstances of each case.
Overall, while the OFAR has faced criticism from some academics, it continues to play a crucial role in the adjudication of damages in South Africa. By promoting finality, certainty, and fairness in legal proceedings, the rule helps to uphold the principles of justice and equity in the resolution of civil disputes.
Your task is to criticise this answer, making use of your prescribed textbook by Klopper and your study guide. Motivate whether this answer is in line with what was expected from students in the question. Your answer must include a suitable introduction and conclude with a satisfactory conclusion in which you indicate to what extent you agreed and differed from the answer that was ChatGPT generated. In your conclusion, you must indicate whether, in your opinion, ChatGPT is a suitable tool to address a legal issue. Marks will also be awarded for your introduction and conclusion.

Question 3 (30 marks)

Read through the set of facts and then answer the questions that follow in table format:

On the morning of 19 April 2019 while A, a teacher, was late for work and while driving along Church Street in a western direction, he entered the intersection with Valley Road when the traffic light had already turned red. At the same time B, a supervisor at a warehouse was travelling in a northern direction, and entered the same intersection just as the light turned green. He did not keep a proper lookout and did not see A. At the time A was driving a Kia Sportage, while B was driving a Renault Clio. A and B collided in the intersection.
As a result of the collision, A sustained the following injuries: head injuries including serious concussion. His right arm was broken, and his right clavicle was fractured. He was taken to hospital by ambulance where he was treated for his injuries. A was hospitalised for a week. Since he also needed occupational therapy and physiotherapy, he would not be able to return to work for 3 months. As a teacher, A earned R30 000.00 per month. He had to pay R5 000.00 for the ambulance, while the hospital bill amounted to R150 000.00. The physiotherapist charged R1 020.00 per session, and it is estimated that A would need 10 sessions. The occupational therapist’s fees amounted to R725.00 per session and A needed to attend 12 sessions with the occupational therapist. To add insult to injury, A only had a month’s sick leave available, which meant that he had to take 2 months unpaid leave to allow him to recover fully before he could resume his duties.
B, the driver of the Renault Clio also sustained serious injuries because of the collision. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to hospital. He had fractured his femur and needed open reduction and internal fixation to stabilise and heal the bone, as well as further surgery. The hospital charged R2 500 per day and he stayed in the hospital for 7 days. Further surgery would cost R200 000. B was also a keen soccer player and played soccer for his local club. As a result of this injury, he would not be able to play soccer again. B was not able to work for two months after the accident. His employer has a “no work no pay” policy, and consequently, he lost his income for two months. At the time of the accident, he earned R35 000 per month.
Both A and B instituted claims for damages arising as a result of the accident from the RAF. During the trial, the court held that they were both 50% negligent in the causing of the accident.

Draw a table in which you indicate the claims for A and B. You must also categorise the claims, then indicate whether the claims will fall under general or special damages. In the last column, the amounts must be given. Where no amounts are given in the set of facts, you may be creative, and give realistic amounts. Present the total amount that A and B will be able to claim respectively.

Answers to Above Questions on Law of Damages

Answer 1: An analysis of both these cases Cenprop Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Holtzhausen and Williams v Pick ‘n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd, indicates that they are both related to personal injury claims, but the outcomes achieved in both of them differs significantly from each other. An analysis of the similarities and differences between both of them including the evaluation of legal questions and a critical analysis of the judgement is performed as follows.