A CHILD who was five at the time when he was involved in a tractor accident had been underpaid in the damages that the court had previously mandated the Road Accident Fund (RAF) pay him.
This is because the court only considered his physical injuries and not the long-standing psychological scars the accident left on him.
The child, only identified as F by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, is now 13 years old and said to be struggling emotionally due to his injuries, which, among others, left ugly scars on his face.
The court previously ordered the RAF to pay R350 000 in terms of general damages to the child, who is represented in the proceedings by a curator.
The curator, however, successfully appealed that ruling, and Judge Harishila Kooverjie replaced the R350 000 damages with an amount of R1 million in damages.
The curator, on appeal, cited several reasons why the previous award should be overturned, which included that it was unreasonable in light of the injuries sustained by the child.
According to the curator, the court failed to consider the child’s serious long-term mental and long-term behavioural disorders, as testified about by the experts.
The curator said it is evident that the court only considered the physical injuries sustained by the child, namely the bruising on the face, deep abrasions on his back, the third-degree burns, and soft tissue right hip injuries.
The judge who previously awarded the R350 000 concluded that the child was not entitled to loss of earnings, as he was attending school and progressing well.
But Judge Kooverjie, on appeal, said it was clear that the child suffered both physically and psychologically following the accident.
She said all of the experts confirmed the child’s psychological and behavioural difficulties.
One of the medical experts commented that the accident left the minor with serious permanent scarring and disfigurement.
“This scarring seriously affects his appearance and dignity, and causes severe social anxiety and embarrassment and would affect his masculinity and his relationships with women in the future,” he told the court.
The neuropsychologist concluded that the child is more cognitively, psychologically, and physically vulnerable five years after the accident.
The court was told that the child’s psychological and behavioural difficulties would remain significant compromising factors, and if they are not addressed, his condition will worsen.
His aggressive behaviour, low frustration tolerance, and trauma-related symptoms are expected to pose an additional challenge in respect of his future scholastic potential.
His transition into adolescence and adulthood would, in all likelihood, be more complicated if he does not receive treatment. It was, therefore, suggested that he undergo long-term psychotherapy and psychiatric treatment.
According to the experts, the child suffers from anxiety and PTSD. He is particularly anxious when travelling; he has flashbacks of the accident, and this distresses him. He is also anxious when crossing the road as a pedestrian, as he was hit by the tractor as he crossed a road.
Judge Kooverjie, during the appeal, said: “It is evident that the trial court failed to evaluate the minor’s psychological, cognitive, and emotional sequelae which had been identified by the experts. This is, in my view, material and requires interference with the award (of R350,000).”
She concluded that an award of R1 million is fair.