IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO. A923/97
TROOS TRANSPORT t/a EKONOLINER

and

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 18 FEBRUARY 1998
CONRADIE J.
The respondent is a thirty-six year old roofing carpenter who lost his sight due to a head injury sustained when the bus in which he was a passenger capsized as a result of the negligence of a servant of the appellant. The matter comes before us pursuant to leave granted on petition to the chief justice.
The liability issue was settled. Thereafter, at a pre-trial conference held on 16 May 1996, the respondent's general damages were agreed at R100 00-00. These were claimed for "shock, pain, suffering, loss of the amenities of life and disability." The lost amenities were alleged, generally, to be those "associated with a person who has lost his eyesight" and, specifically, the inability to enjoy carpentry, gardening, fishing and walking.	

After the loss of amenities claim had been settled, a further claim was introduced by amendment, a month before the trial on quantum was to resume on 21 October 1996. This claim read simply "Cost of attendant / driver R600 514-00." In response to a request for trial particulars the respondent specified that he required an "assistant/ driver" as a full-time employee working a 9.2 hour day five days a week. His duties would be to drive the respondent to his mosque three times a day, to collect the children from school and to assist the respondent in shopping and other duties. He would have to possess a driver's licence for light motor vehicles and should preferably be a Muslim with a medical background, having successfully completed a course at the Cape Town Blind Society.

" There was a considerable amount of evidence concerning what plaintiff used to do before the accident and what he hoped to do and wished to be enabled to do now. Such activities include going shopping, paying accounts, attending a gymnasium, going fishing, taking his children to school, and, most importantly, for plaintiff is a deeply religious man, attending the mosque.

Then, after citing passages from the respondent's evidence, he continued :
" What all this is saying is that plaintiff wants to get out into the world, to do things that a sighted person takes for granted, to mix with people, to do household chores, to be an active parent and to practise his faith.
No one can deny him these pleasures which will in some objectively small but to plaintiff important way restore to him some enjoyment of human intercourse and some self esteem.

I am persuaded that there is no adequate substitute or alternative to what plaintiff seeks from the court, namely, paid transport to take him out of the house, for whatever purpose, of for no purpose at all other than to escape the confines of four walls."

Hoexter JA described the amenities of life as "those satisfactions in one's everyday existence which flow from the blessings of an unclouded mind, a healthy body and sound limbs."
The focus of the judgment before us is not on increased expenses. Indeed, there was no evidence about what the respondent's travelling expenses would have been had it not been for his injury. This would have been an indispensable element in proving a claim for augmented future expenses. In my view, the claim could not, once the claim for loss of amenities of life had been settled, have been brought on the footing on which it was. It follows that the award, which was not one for increased living expenses, should not have been made.

" All this is by way of providing a yardstick for an unusual and specialised situation. Plaintiff has claimed the cost of an attendant/driver. Someone who would not only drive him around, but would also be able to assist him at his destination.
This is in my view a reasonable claim; it would not do, for instance, for plaintiff to be taken to a shopping centre and simply dumped there. Similarly if he wished to go, say, fishing. At the gym or at the mosque, it is true, he would be with friends and like-minded persons who no doubt would assist him; in such circumstances he would have less need for an attendant. I am nevertheless satisfied that on a long term, regular basis the sort of person plaintiff reasonably requires will fulfil the dual functions of driver and attendant.
In discussing the remuneration of the assistant/driver, the learned judge emphasised that 'someone more than just a driver' would be required for this particular job. He would have to be remunerated at R2250-00 per month. The discounted value of his services was actuarially established at R538 360-00. That was the amount awarded to the respondent under this head.
The cost of a personal attendant has been sparingly awarded in the South African case law. It has, as far as I know, been allowed only in the case of aggravated physical injury where there have been pressing medical indications for the employment of a care giver, that is to say, where there has been seen to be a need for assistance, equipment and facilities directly related to the injury. I mention the following four cases as recent manifestations of this approach.

In the present case, there is no expert evidence that the plaintiff, who has been trained to be independent in his personal management, needs an attendant for medical reasons. The award was not made on this basis. It was made to generally improve his lot. To my way of thinking, it would set a dangerous precedent to allow the injured victim of a delict the cost of a full-time companion to ease his burden under circumstances such as one has here. I do not doubt that all kinds of victims with disabilities who find it difficult to get about would like to have companions to help them be more mobile and generally make them feel better, but the trend in our jurisprudence has not been that expansive and with good reason: the social cost of compensation on such a generous scale would be too large a burden to carry. For this reason, also, I would not have awarded the plaintiff the amount of R538 000-00.

(a) the deletion of paragraph 2 thereof;
(b) the deletion of the word and figure "and 2" in paragraph 4 thereof.
J H CODNRADIE
I agree:
G A KUHN
I agree:
C PRISMAN