Case Study Analysis

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Introduction:
In the present assignment, the case of Glenn Marc Bee v The Road Accident
Fund has been critically analyzed in the light of collateral source rule1. In the present
case, the appellate court has decided in the favor of the respondent Glenn Mac Bee.
The appeal was dismissed by the court.
Discussion:
In this writing, the present case is being illustrated with reference to the landmark
case of Rudman v Road Accident Fund2. In the present case, the judgment given in the
latter case was not followed. In the Rudman case, the trial judge dismissed the appeal
of Rudman for the past loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity as the plaintiff was
unable to prove his patrimonial loss3. However, in this instant case, the trial court
deviated from its earlier view and considered the facts of the case more critically.
In this case, the respondent Glenn was hit by a motor vehicle and got severe
injuries. He sued in the trail court and the court ordered the Road Accident Fund to pay
an amount of R12894600.12. Thereafter the Road Accident Fund appealed to the full
court in respect of past and future loss earnings and costs. Such appeal of future and
past claims was set aside. The appellant institutes a suit to set aside the previous order.
However, the appeal was dismissed again and the appellant was ordered to pay the
respondent the cost of appeal with the costs of two counsels.
In this particular case of appeal, the court applied the collateral source rule which
says that the reduction in the damages awarded to a plaintiff for injury, disability or
sickness covered by any third party like an insurer is prevented. The insurance
company must pay the compensation to the insurer according to the terms of the
agreement between them without giving regard to any other subsidiary factors. It is
1 Glenn Marc Bee v The Road Accident Fund (093/2017) [2018] ZASCA 52 (March 2018).
2 Rudman v Road Accident Fund (370/01) [2002] ZASCA 129; [2002] 4 All SA 422 (SCA) (26 September
2002).
3 Neethling, J., and J. M. Potgieter. "Delictual liability for an omission and statutory authority as ground of
justification-Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v X 2015 1 SA 25 (SCA)." Journal of
South African Law/Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015.4 (2015): 856-863.