Road Accident Fund v L.M and Others

Link to judgment: Road Accident Fund v L.M and Others (174/2024) [2026] ZASCA 73 (21 May 2026)

---

Summary for Expert Witnesses: This is an important case for expert witnesses to be aware of. It acutely demonstrates the concept that expert witnesses need to be well versed in both their own professional field and have an understanding of the key principles relevant to their evidence as expert witnesses.

This case deals with the legal principles relating to the following important concepts in the context of expert evidence: factual and legal causation; suicide; loss of support claims (dependants’ actions); factual and opinion evidence by expeerts; the importannce of the issues to be addressed; impermissible reasoning in dealing with inferences and assumptions; the application of the concept of foreseeability; and the Court’s approach to conflicting expert evidence.

---

Summary for Mediators: The comments in Summary for Expert Witnesses above are relevant to mediators.

Case Note

---

The Facts

This case concerned the attribution of legal liability for the consequences of a death by suicide.

The case involved a claim for loss of support by dependants against the Road Accident Fund arising from the death of the breadwinner following a motor vehicle collision. The deceased suffered significant impairment of physical function and some disfigurement as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Approximately two and a half years after the accident the deceased took his own life.

A claim had been instituted by the deceased against the Road Accident Fund prior to his death. This claim succeeded after his death, and the Fund was ordered to pay an amount of R1,020,857.30 to the deceased’s estate as compensation.

In the meanwhile, the widow of the deceased instituted a claim arising from the deceased’s death against the RAF. She claimed for loss of support in her personal capacity and in her representative capacity as natural guardian and mother on behalf of her minor daughters.

It was common cause that the deceased did not suffer any cognisable psychological lesion or mental illness as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the collision.

---

The issues

Before the Supreme Court of Appeal, the central question concerned the causal nexus between the admitted wrongful and negligent conduct which caused injury to the deceased, and the deceased’s subsequent conduct causing his own death.

---

Reasoning

It was common cause that the deceased did not suffer from any cognisable psychological lesion or injury that can be said to have impaired his mental capacity or judgment. He was capable of exercising his free will, and there was no evidence that he did not or could not appreciate the consequences of his conduct. The deceased’s mental distress, anger, frustration, and expressions of despair did not permit a finding that he was incapable of exercising his volition. In these circumstances, and since the deceased was able to exercise his free will, the deceased’s decision to take his life was therefore a new intervening cause of the eventuating harm and thus broke the chain of causation betweeen the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

However, that was not the end of the enquiry. The Court held that it must still be considered whether the deceased’s deliberate act was foreseeable or sufficiently closely connected to the harm actually caused by the wrongful conduct. If so, then legal liability for the consequences of the eventuating harm could fairly be attributed to the wrongdoer. The Court held, on the facts of the case, that the deceased’s deliberate act was not foreseeablen or sufficiently closely connected to the harm actually caused by the wrongful conduct for the defendant to be liable.

The Court considered the nature of a dependant’s claim, the legal principles relating to both factual and legal causation, foreseeability of harm, the occurrence of suicide in relation to the elements of fault in delictual claims. The court also considered expert evidence in relation to assumptions, deductive reasoning and the drawing of inferences, and the approach to conflicting expert evidence.

---

Finding

In the circumstances, the Court held that the Road Accident Fund was not liable for the suicide of the deceased.