LAW OF DAMAGES
LPL4802
19 OCTOBER 2023
EXAMINATION ANSWERS
.
*We are so confident in our answers, if you do not
receive a distinction, contact us for a full refund!
, HONESTY DECLARATION
Module Code: ....................... Assessment Date.................
1. I know that plagiarism means taking and using the ideas, writings, works or
inventions of another as if they were one’s own. I know that plagiarism not only
includes verbatim copying, but also the extensive use of another person’s ideas
without proper acknowledgement (which includes the proper use of quotation marks)
or any attempt to cheat the plagiarism checking system. I know that plagiarism
covers the use of material found in textual sources and from the Internet.
2. I acknowledge and understand that plagiarism is wrong.
3. I understand that my assignment/exam answers must be accurately referenced.
4. This assignment/exam file/portfolio is my own work. I acknowledge that copying
someone else’s work, or part of it, is wrong, and that submitting identical work to
others constitutes a form of plagiarism.
5. I have not allowed, nor will I in the future allow anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as their own work.
6. I understand that I can be awarded 0% if I have plagiarized.
7. I understand that my assignment/exam file/portfolio may be submitted
automatically to Turnitin.
8. I confirm that I have read and understood the following UNISA policies: 8.1 Policy
for Copyright and Plagiarism
8.2 Policy on Academic Integrity
8.3 Student Disciplinary Code
Name:………………
Signed:................ . Date...................
,NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (ESSAY)
(a) Study Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June
2023) case herein attached as well as the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
as amended and answer the question below:
Write a critical appreciation/analysis of the court’s reasoning to disqualify the
forklift as a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the Road
Accident Fund. Refer to the relevant case law and applicable legislation
quoted and relied on, in this case.
The issue of whether a forklift constitutes as a 'motor vehicle' as per the Road
Accident Fund Act1 (the RAF Act) is intricate. The legal precedent of this recent
Supreme Court of Appeal case has raised substantial questions regarding the
definition and classification of motor vehicles under the Act, and hence their eligibility
for claims from the Road Accident Fund.
The Act defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle designed or adapted for propulsion
or haulage on roads by means of fuel, gas, or electricity, including a trailer. The Act
exists mainly to provide cover to individuals against antecedent liabilities incurred
regarding bodily injuries or death inflicted on people by way of motor vehicle
accidents.
In the current case2, the SCA clarified the classification of the forklift as something
other than a motor vehicle on two fronts, operating location, and design purpose.
Firstly, it examined the operating area of the forklift. It was determined that the forklift
principally operated within the confines of a private property (Nzhelele Spar). It was
rarely, if ever, driven outside the premises or across a public road. This distinction is
1
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
2
Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June
2023
, pivotal as for an entity to fall within the jurisdiction of the RAF Act, it must operate on
a "public road."
A "public road" as per the Act's3 definitions section includes any road, street, or
thoroughfare or any other place, including bridges or weighbridges, to which the
public or any section of the public has a right of access. Because the incident
occurred in the receiving bay of the Spar store, a private area not accessible to the
general public, the court ruled the forklift was not operating on a "public road" and
thus fell outside the scope of the RAF Act.
Secondly, the court explored the inherent design and purpose of a forklift. A forklift is
typically used to lift and transport materials over short distances. This was also the
case here, where the forklift's main responsibility involved carrying loads within the
Spar store. It was not designed or adapted for general propulsion or haulage on
public roads. This goes against the notion of a "motor vehicle" as per the RAF Act's
context,4 which implies a vehicle designed for transport on roads.
Therefore, based on these elements, the SCA deemed the forklift did not meet the
necessary characteristics of being a 'motor vehicle' operating on a 'public road,' a
prerequisite qualifications needed to lodge a claim against the RAF.
One possible criticism regarding the court's reasoning could be that it took an
arguably narrow view of the definition of a motor vehicle. The RAF Act does not
specifically exclude forklifts or similar machinery from its definition. Therefore, one
could argue that the Act needs amending to include or exclude such vehicles
expressly.
It's also worth acknowledging that this decision demonstrates a balance between
providing remedial relief for accident victims and ensuring the RAF's sustainability by
3
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
4
Section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (the Act) defines a "motor vehicle" as:
[a]ny vehicle designed or adapted for propulsion or haulage on a road by means of fuel, gas or electricity,
including a trailer, a caravan, an agricultural or any other implement designed or adapted to be drawn by such
motor vehicle. (our emphasis)
