|
Motor car road traffic accident damage recovery, is what our subject is all about.
|
Below please find some issues and occurrences of common interest, listed and linked.
Car accident issues that matters most:
|
|
|
|
Caught up in a car accident
in South Africa, may force a party to claim damages from the wrongdoer,
or may lead to the need to defend against inflated or unrealistic claims.
RAMLA - Road Accident Management & Legal Action
Car accident lawyers and professional claim managers, enforcing traffic collision damages, effective, decisive but affordable.
Caught up in a traffic collision were motor cars/vehicles been involved, most of the time material damage or damage to property such as cars or other amenities, will come along with the impact.
An impact causes damages and compensation for repairs is automatically at stake.
RAMLA do concentrate on material or financial damage compensation claims, to get you be paid from the wrongdoer and/or liable party, in an accident scenario.
Such compensation claim can be one directly targeted against a wrongdoer in person, or dealing with representatives such as Lawyers or Motor Insurance Company claim deciders as a 3rd party claim.
Any claim needs to be funded on evidence and factual arguments supported by proof.
Proofing a claim is often easier said as done, as proof comes - in almost all cases - from the circumstances of the accident and evidence need attention right at the scene of impact.
Given if it is missed to secure evidence at the scene and its been not thoroughly attended to, it is time to do it now and act to secure all facts possible.
It is certainly not impossible to get such evidence, even in time after the accident, but it can be more difficult.
|
|
Free case analyse!
Dear valued reader, checking out the RAMLA car accident compensation platform; obviously you do have some traffic accident damage issues to solve.
Contact RAMLA for a free check and advice about your particular case issue. Just tell us about what happened and problem you face.
|
|
It may happen that potential witnesses left without identification, debris be cleared, faulty traffic lights be repaired, or CCTV footage deleted.
Pictures from the scene, document vehicle positions - damages etc., can only be taken, if and when cars still be in its places, which - once available - will have significant value in proofing facts and help reconstruct the impact or scenario.
As much important evidence is in itself, it is evenly relevant to know how to use it.
The ultimate goal is to be compensated for losses.
Experience is needed to be knowledgably and competently in order to address a claim and achieve a fair compensation pay.
Once a claim formulated, documented and served, still the reaction of other parties needs to be waited for and the content thereof to be analysed.
Results will define actions as what steps will or need to be taken next.
As a claim is formulated and supplied, it is to no certainty that reporting a fair claim, even if it is well documented, must lead the other party agree and accept and certainly pay the damages claimed.
Disputes can arise about the way all unfolded, the question of liability can be seen from different points of view, damage value or Quantum be under dispute and many more aspects of disputes can be raised, too much to get to in this column.
Another weak point can be a lack in knowledge how to handle a compensation claim.
People only looking for some advice only a while or even after a longer period of time, past the actual accident, and visit Web Pages such as this one you browse now - often late, and in the meantime doing all they can to address a compensation action to his/her own knowledge.
Many try to act on what may be at hand and they find and regard themselves to be fit for it.
This may work for a number of cases, as matters are clear and facts at hand are strong in its evidential role and the opponent or defendant do not argue unfair.
However it would be too optimistic to believe it is the normality. It is not, as it is almost the opposite, as many cases end up unsatisfactory.
Results or settlement offers may be incorrect in adjustment of liability, often named as contribution to the accident, by not adhere to all the duties, citing perhaps unreasonable precedents and/or allege and apply apportionment.
That may lead to significant losses, shortfalls or complete denial/repudiation of a claim.
Not any layman may be qualified to see through all of that and know if all what one faces in terms of reaction or settlement offers, will be fair and correct.
We do believe it is worth taking time and effort to check out on any doubt, before accepting any proposal.
Sometimes bodily injuries occur in a vehicle collision inflicting harm and pain to humans.
Even bodily injuries do have in some way a financial component and a victim need to be compensated in order to cope with recovery and subsequent costs etc.
However - we the author of this Web Platform - RAMLA - do not deal with bodily injuries claims.
Many specialised lawyers offer its services to solve matters pertaining a RAF (Road Accident Fund,) - bodily injury compensation claim, but the South African Government recommend a victim to first check and find out if one can claim without any specialist, in order not to spend a large portion of compensation on Lawyers fees.
We are specialised expert's in all respects to motor car accident damage compensation
claiming damages, defending against unreasonable or inflated claims, working in Motor Insurance disputes, in all those subjects over a long period of almost 15 years.
We attended thousands of requests, analysing, supporting and pursue material car accident claims, expertly, effective, economical and affordable.
Such excellent service can be to your service Nationwide, in South Africa.
|
|
Free case analyse!
Dear valued reader, checking out the RAMLA car accident compensation platform; obviously you do have some traffic accident damage issues to solve.
Contact RAMLA for a free check and advice about your particular case issue. Just tell us about what happened and problem you face.
|
|
Road Accident Management & Legal Action (RAMLA) can professionally represent clients, taking care of their interests, which can be the solution you may look for.
You will find a lot more of useful information on the RAMLA web pages.
Check out for keyword links in the left column to select your topic.
|
|
Not each and every car accident compensation claim will handled fair, correct and reasonable.
|
|
Initially important is, to know the definition of what we have to understand, is full and fair motor accident damage compensation.
But even before doing so, we have to clarify that the South African System of motor car accident compensation, is split into the sector of bodily injuries, which deals with compensation actions regarding injuries to the human body and material damages, such as compensation for car destruction or consequential damages.
The RAMLA web pages, you are browsing currently, only focus on material damage compensation and civil claim actions to be financial/material losses paid for full and fair, resulting from traffic accidents.
In terms of compensation, the South African law say:
You should materially be compensated to the state before accident, so that you will be able to repair your car to pre-collision status, or if repair cost will exceed such pre-collision or market value; and the car be called a write off, be compensated to the amount of money the car been worth to time of impact, minus any sellable value or Salvage of the vehicle.
That means either you cannot expect a new car (some exemptions excluded here i.e. if your motor vehicle new, not older than a year since being on the road the first time, or depreciation kick in, if your car is fairly used and the marks of wear and tear, impacting your auto value to a specific time.
But even an older motor car must be repaired to manufacturer's standards to maintain the roadworthy status, as long as it will not be a write off.
Motor car accident damage claims may get into difficulties, once another party do not agree with what is claimed for.
Differences may be to condition of Quantum/Repair costs or of Liability.
Disputes must be addressed and corroborated by factual evidence, such as witness statements or pictures, CCTV footage or any other suitable evidence.
A successful claim should be supported by merits, so the other party do not have much to argue, but compelled to accept the claim demand and pay.
A claim launched with your own motor insurance company (comprehensive claim), will have to look on what you have covered under your policy, before any acceptance can be decided upon.
Depending on the cover taken, it can be the insured did accept some contribution, such as excess and the claim process need to be according to terms & conditions of the insurance contract.
A 3rd party claim, directed to the perpetrator however, must give you full compensation and no clauses, as insurance excess or any limitations in a insurance policy apply. Only the law of delict will be applicable to decide liability.
Any claim for car accident damage compensation can go wrong, be disputed or even declined.
As soon as in the process of a claim pursuit any disturbance or unusual investigation requests are noticed, it will be highly advisable to check critically, if your own knowledge and skill is sufficient to perform a vehicle crash compensation action your own, or if you should consider practical support by professionals.
A claim for compensation against another car driver or vehicle owner is a process and cannot be explained in a sentence.
There is a lot about the way to claim and about dispute issues or problems, that can occur in a particular and always individual case, on our comprehensive WEB info platform.
However, as it is often the case, individual problems need individual answers and/or actions.
You are invited to contact RAMLA for a free initial case analyse and advice, by contact us by email ramla@ramla.co.za tell us what happened and the problems you face or expect, for a free reply and advice.
Should you do not like contacting us now, but need more information, check the keyword list to select your issue and find more on the linked page.
|
|
Free case analyse!
Dear valued reader, checking out the RAMLA car accident compensation platform; obviously you do have some traffic accident damage issues to solve.
Contact RAMLA for a free check and advice about your particular case issue. Just tell us about what happened and problem you face.
|
|
|
|
Inflated or unjust claims need proper defence against unreasonable vehicle accident compensation actions
|
|
Defending against inflated claims isn't as challenging as perhaps thought.
Defence against unrealistic, unjustified or inflated claims is a need to do, if alleged to be held liable for car accident damages, which do not fall in your responsibilities.
It is always an inconvenient situation when defensive actions are needed, as to alleged of wrongdoing, which isn't true or fair.
However any person unfairly accused of wrongdoing and causing damages to another in a motor car collision, must enter into defence, not to risk to be sued and end up innocently be judged against one and subsequently face execution, against all of your property.
It should be noted that a claim against a person, is only dangerous, if not defended properly.
Defensive actions mean, deny a claim and its accusation, simple and clear and request proof of facts and merits.
Only if such evidential facts indeed be supplied and its content suest not to allow challenging the accusation, it will be advisable to look for a compromise or settlement agreement.
It must be known, that a person sue another in a Court of Law, must proof that the allegations are true and fair on a balance of probabilities.
Should such a proof cannot be shown, a case is lost and dismissed with costs and the Defendant is released from any liability or compensation payment.
In order to avoid unnecessary risk and hassle, it is highly recommended to utilise professional support to rebut unfair allegations, not to lose out on reasons of lack of knowledge, how to act against such allegations.
|
|
Free case analyse!
Dear valued reader, checking out the RAMLA car accident compensation platform; obviously you do have some traffic accident damage issues to solve.
Contact RAMLA for a free check and advice about your particular case issue. Just tell us about what happened and problem you face.
|
|
|
|
RAMLA is a specialised expert in all MVA matters, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Motor Vehicle Accident
We offer the solution in Car Accident matters, analysing, supporting, demanding, corresponding, negotiating, settlement agreements and further taking matters to a court of law in South Africa, if no amicable solution could be found, in pre-litigation, to best favourable conditions in a professional and decisive routine.
Facing challenges with motor car accident issues in South Africa?
RAMLA will be the solution,
demanding compensation, resolving disputes, defending against inflated or unreasonable claims,
in all sectors of vehicle accident damage compensation problems.
|
|
|
|
Motor vehicle accidents happens every day on public roads, often causing damages to property
Utilise the affordable professional solutions RAMLA offers clients in South Africa, to solve such repercussions.
Apportionment of liability in car accident damages claims
We do have the expertise and know how to act for you.
Experience exceptional service, testified by clients, even after hours or weekends, giving you a peace of mind your case is taken care off, no matter what.
|
|
|
Your specialised legal expert to sort out MVA matters
Professional - competent - swift - decisive and affordable
|
|
RAMLA - Road Accident Management & Legal Action
Solution's solving MVA problems
|
Apportionment of liability in car accident damages claims South Africa (RSA)
|
|
|
Apportionment of liability in car accident matters are detrimental and difficult, often applied unfairly interpreting South African Law inappropriately (RSA)
Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act, No. 58 of 1971
Matrimonial Property Act, No. 88 of 1984
[with effect from 1 November, 1984]
Justice Laws Rationalisation Act, No. 18 of 1996
[with effect from 1 April 1997]
General Law Amendment Act, No. 49 of 1996
[with effect from 4 October 1996]
ACT To amend the law relating to contributory negligence and the law relating to the liability of persons jointly or severally liable in delict for the same damage, and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
Determination of the portion of Liability in a car accident is always a challenge and must be looked upon in regard and context of the Apportionment of Damages Act.
Apportionment, seen in a general conjunction with motor car accident claims means, more than one party is deemed to be causal or contributively to the accident itself and such wrongdoing or omitting to take evasive actions, should give rise to blame those, for their financial share of contribution.
In simple words, it can be that a motorist be accused having contributed to a car accident, despite no violation of the traffic regulations, apply to his driving.
Generally there is always more than one vehicle involved in a traffic accident, if it comes to damage compensation.
Participants are the driver of the vehicle, being causal for the road accident impact and another, or even more cars. If it comes defining the matter of liability and subsequent the degree of responsibilities, for motor car damage compensation, a variety of factors can be influential.
There are scenarios where it is clear that one car driver is at fault, but there are even situations where another involved in the same accident, may not have abided all what is expected from him/her, such as reasonable foreseeability of danger, irresponsible force of the right of way, driving not careful enough to avoid an accident, or missing out taking all evasive measurers to circumvent an impact, even if it is clear the other is at fault by wrongful driving.
|
|
RAMLA can help clients in all MVA matters to solve problems professionally, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover), review of declines with the Ombudsman (OSTI) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Negligent driving of more than just one motorist, of which all together will have been contributable to the traffic accident, will lead to apportion the damages.
Legal related Site Map - A comprehensive overview of relevant Claim Issues
One not obeying the rules of the road, but not the sole motorist being causal for the accident, but contributed throughout the disobey of the traffic legislation, will face a portion of liability.
Regularly apportionment or partly liability will be dealt with, if the other party claims, not being solely liable for the traffic accident, accusing the other party/parties, having contributed to the crash of the cars.
Most commonly this argument is utilised by motor insurance companies, when formulating settlement agreements. Case law or precedents will be cited to impress the victim and convince them accepting a part of the liability.
However apportionment of damages, even to a high degree in favour of the claimant/victim, generally leads to significant financial shortfall of compensation.
Your specialised expert to sort out MVA matters
Professional - competent - swift - decisive and affordable
|
|
|
Factors of Apportionment for accident damage liability or contributing in causation
Headlines and Issues on this page
|
|
What is contributable liability in a motor accident case?
Contributable liability, for the cause of a car accident, will be given, once not only one car driver will be solely or 100% liable, for the reason the traffic accident had happened at all.
Frequently seen, the argument another be partly liable, is used much too often unfairly or deliberately, in an attempt to minimise car accident damage compensation payments, especially if dealing with 3rd party motor insurance companies.
The argument, heavily applied is - No one have the absolute right of the way -, attempting to construct another motorists will be partial liability, or even blamed for apportionment of liability in some extend, averring those have contributed to the cause of a road accident, and so far liable for a portion of the losses in damages, to pay for.
Case precedents are cited, often those of the early days of rising traffic density, about 30 or more years ago, to impress the claimant with a juristic decision, commonly not matching the particular situation, or overturned in the course of years many times.
Such attempt can be very week and should not be accepted, without checking further evidence and the similarity of the particular case. Case law, as it is even known, is suitable for the principle but not for the details to decide a new case, as all impacts differ and no one will be exactly the same. Any case however should or must be determined individually.
|
|
RAMLA can help clients in all MVA matters to solve problems professionally, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover), review of declines with the Ombudsman (OSTI) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Contributable liability can be alleged, if it can be proven a motorist drove the motor vehicle negligently or recklessness, causing the major effect of the impact and even the other car driver made mistakes too and not obeying the rules of the road entirely, commonly accused not to have done all in his power to avoid the impact or didn't watch the scene, etc.
Driving a motor vehicle in public traffic, gives the car driver a lot of tasks whilst on the road and does not allow a driver just forcing the way through, one believes is his/her right of way.
The vehicle driver must having control over the motor car at all times and reasonably foresee danger or difficulties in traffic ahead or around him, being prepared for and applying evasive measurers, avoiding an impact with another, even negligent driving motorist, who may have created the circumstances.
Once a motorist have had obeyed to all those de-escalation actions, and acted reasonably avoiding an impact, but at the end didn't had a chance evade an impact, will not be contributable liable or partial liable for any damages caused, even if this motoristcould not avoid and bumped into another from the rear.
Back Page Selection
Back Legal issues Selection
Back Legal Matters Site Map
Contact RAMLA . . . for your free initial case analyse Now
Know more about the free first case analyses before contacting RAMLA?
How will the apportionment of damages be determined?
In motor car crashes, where contributable liability will playing a role, the quantum or extent for liability and damages caused, to the vehicles or property, must be particularised.
Determine partly liability and subsequent define the percentage of such contribution to the traffic crash, is difficult and most challenges, in order to come to a fair and just decision.
Unfortunately the main group of such decision makers are motor insurance admins, deciding as they deem fit, based on sources not always reliable, up to date or based on incomplete client statements and much more inappropriate factors.
Motor insurance claim administrators, even called a number of different titles, such as claim technician or adjuster, commonly don't have a proper legal background to be able to come to fair and just decisions. It will perhaps even take too much time to look onto any such claim in detail, as the numbers coming into the insurance space every day are quite high.
A real proper decision can be expected if a court of law is involved. Only a court of law does have the powers to hear witnesses and evaluate facts in the light of all those factors relevant. A motor insurance claim admin doesn't have such experience and powers.
The bad thing however is, that they indeed perform and unfortunately decide the majority of cases, as motorists in 3rd party claims without insurance, generally don't have any such experience at all.
This is one of the reasons, wrong decisions are accepted just too often to the detrimental of the claimant, as they are aware the "might" of the insurance and hesitate to go the way into dispute or even approaching a court of law.
|
|
RAMLA can help clients in all MVA matters to solve problems professionally, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover), review of declines with the Ombudsman (OSTI) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Evaluating the true circumstances of the motor vehicle accident, is not always an easy task, as no motor accident will be exactly be the same as another, probably cited by a party as precedent and argument calling another partial liable.
All contributable factors needs to be looked on, the scene of the traffic accident and traffic signs or robot situations, other conditions as weather etc. taken into consideration, and put together in a well organised sketch. But still, even taking care of all the implying factors, conclusions of parties may differ.
Even in motor car accidents where only two parties involved, both could be partly liable. Being partly liable for the car accident, one must have contributed to the fact that the accident happened at all, acted in a negligent manner, such as being careless in the maintenance of the car or contributing to the cause of the accident by not taking the necessary care or abide the rules of the road.
Such cases of car accident damage are often complicated and the results and determination of liability for vehicle accidents are only moderately predicable. This situation also has the potential for disputes between the parties.
If a party, is proven having contributed to the cause of car accident, but not being completely the wrongdoer, that party will be partly liable and has to contribute and pay for a part of the car damage.
The determination of the portion or percentage of liability may be complex and need the attention of experts, in evaluating the material quota of the damage, as well as the percentage or portion of the contribution, to the cause of car accident.
There are many factors, which can influence such findings - for example, one party may not have taken the necessary care, or have not kept the right safety distance, did not have had a proper look out, or simply failed to recognise some traffic signs or regulations, while the other party may have driven a not roadworthy motor car.
South African imotor insurance companies often accuses someone, involved in a car accident, and argue the 3rd party being contributable to the cause or been negligent driving in other effects, in an attempt to shift responsibilities to a car driver, whose believing is, being in the right.
What can be seen often is that apportionments are in the range of 70 / 30 or 60 / 40 the latter for the more liable the former for the less liable. The effects on damage compensation are dramatically bad in it comes to such high percentages.
It is however surprising that in all the years RAMLA deals with motor car accident damage claims, not a single case been apportioned by an insurance decision being, 50 / 50 or even 20 / 80, as that would not benefit the decline in pay out effectively.
It will need some arguments and proof rebutting such allegations of partly liability, in order to avoid a time and cost consuming court case, for car accident compensation.
Utilise the outstanding RAMLA car accident claim service, if you need to sort out such allegations. Submit your accident documentation for initial review by RAMLA claim service, and receive comments and recommendations, absolutely free.
Motor Car Accident, in South Africa?
Want your car accident damages being paid for and receive your material vehicle accident damage compensation for destructions, suffered in a traffic accident on South African roads?
You are welcome to contact RAMLA to receive free advice after a free accident fact check to determine your position.
Contact RAMLA (Road Accident Management & Legal Action), tell us your Motor Vehicle Accident story, the issues of concern, the problems you detect or face and get a free check and advice how to proceed.
We will check and analyse your individual case and revert to you - most of the time in a short circle of time.
For best results contact us by email initially, give us an idea of the incident, attach one or two pictures of the damages or relevant situation, the extend or value of the damages suffered - if already assessed.
In case of an Insurance claim decline, supply us with a copy of the repudiation letter, of give us the reason for the rejection and name the Insurance Company.
Should you like talking to us (phone contact displayed below), best do that after the initial email briefing, but keep in mind even we need some time to check about your matter first.
Your are very welcome to utilise such valuable absolutely free initial advice*
|
| RAMLA can be the solution in MVA matters
Do you know that RAMLA is a specialised expert in handling and enforcing or defending all kind of MVA (motor vehicle accident) matters, pursuing motor car accident compensation claims, Insurance dispute resolutions, for its clients - effective - professional - decisive and resolute, to best and affordable fees.
|
|
As you probably have recognised on our comprehensive web information platform, we do know what we are taking about.
We do invite anyone in South Africa, facing an MVA (motor vehicle accident) problem, to contact us for a first - free - analyse of your particular matter and get initial advice how to proceed.
As a specialist in traffic accident recovery actions, we act for clients/members in the relevant manner, but based on a paid mandate or membership, if a need of practical support arises.
We do offer a free first advice, to determinate your case and give you a direction how and what may be the way forward, in order to build confidence with a potential client.
As professional specialists, in charge of acting in motor accident damage claims in South Africa, we offer a well performing, decisive and demanding claim pursuit, at affordable fees.
It's so easy contacting us by email.
The effective way will be sending an email containing the nature, damage and problems detected. Once sent through to us, we will study the matter and after analysing the facts, we get back to you by email (most commonly within about 3 hours), with the result and advice,
- free of charge.
If you like explaining your problem to our claim manager on duty, you are welcome to contact us by phone for an initial briefing on cell 076 770 3179 (standard rates apply).
For best results: dont't just call, once you took notice of the opportunity!
First think what you like to get accross, best file it as email and call once you got our feedback.
For reasons to convince you not just calling immediately, please follow: how to contact RAMLA successfully.
It will be much more effective; if we do get a briefing of the matter via email, before a telephone call, so we will be prepared answering your questions.
* please note that a practical claim pursuit will not be free of charge and comes with a paid mandate, but at reasonable and affordable fees, however take the chance to get initial free advice.
|
|
Car accident compensation claims for damages, may cause some headache,
in South Africa.
RAMLA can be the solution to sort out MVA problems.
Not everything in a compensation action goes smooth and the way wanted, as we are confronted with numerous possible challenges.
RAMLA a specialised legal expert in material car accident damage claims,
filing, demanding, enforcing compensation actions, supporting disputes in dispute resolution actions, with Motor Insurance Companies, or its Agents, work in Ombudsman's (OSTI) review cases,
or defend a motorist against unreasonable or inflated compensation claims.
Contact RAMLA to analyse your case, and get a free opinion where you stand and what to do next. You can contact RAMLA 7/24 and receive a response soon.
It's so easy, just e mail your story and attach what you got to make the RAMLA claim manager understand your problem.
Just draft a brief report of what had happen and send it (use this mail link) to RAMLA for free analyses and you will receive a reply soon.
Contact us now and let us know how we can help you?
email us your story and details to ramla@ramla.co.za for a free first analyse and advice.
|
|
|
|
RAMLA offers full legal support to solve a car accident compensation claim, starting with a comprehensive claim preparation and subsequent legal action to enforce fair compensation or defend against inflated or unrealistic recovery actions, all the way up to a court case, if no solution can be found in pre-litigation.
|
|
RAMLA - Road accident management & legal action is a specialist in material motor car damage claims in South Africa. Appling a unique concept of claim support, a client/member will benefit from low financial cost to realise a claim and even enjoy the comfort to interact with competent specialists most often online, not wasting time by visiting lawyer's offices and even pay therefore.
But more important is you get in contact with your competent claim manager all along and not queue in poor and expensive call centre phone lines. Contact RAMLA and utilise the above free advice offer for you.
When will a motorist be regarding as causal for impacts?
Causality is deemed to be put on those car drivers, who throughout negligence driving is the one don't control driving, made mistakes in evaluating danger and drove abnormal commonly in violation of the rules of the road.
If a driver skipping a red robot and collide with a vehicle on its proceeding within its right of way, don't observe traffic in front and around, driving too fast and not obey safety distances, and as a result of such, causes the traffic accident.
As laid out above, there are possibilities, that other motorist equally or less equally contribute to such road accident, or that the one driven negligent is the 100% liable party.
If it is obvious, that a car driver on public roads, had not driven a motor car according to the traffic legislation and it is concluded, he/she having driven negligent or even recklessness; and harm other motorists involved in the same car crash, he will likely be seen as causal for the impact.
Other motorist who have proven that they adhered to the rules of the road and have taken all the precautions and measures avoiding the collision, but eventually couldn't escape the impact, will not be the negligent car driver and so far even not liable. To be blamed liable or partly liable, some wrongdoing must be evident in driving the vehicles.
Back Page Selection
Back Legal issues Selection
Back Legal Matters Site Map
Contact RAMLA . . . for your free initial case analyse Now
Know more about the free first case analyses before contacting RAMLA?
Which are the consequences if partial liability is alleged?
The consequences being partly liable, for any cause of a traffic accident, will make the motorist accountable and held liable in relation to the percentage of fault, for compensation of damages, to the extend being considered or proven liable.
Being partly liable based on arguments of causation, will mean one must pay a part (percentage) of - all - damages, stemming from this particular motor accident added together and apportioned to the percentage.
|
|
RAMLA can help clients in all MVA matters to solve problems professionally, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover), review of declines with the Ombudsman (OSTI) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Some examples, how commonly the portion payable for compensation is calculated:
Sample 1
Damages of vehicle "A" amounts to R 60,000 with a 30% partial liability -
60,000 x 70% compensation = R 42,000
Damages of vehicle "B" amounts to R 110,000 with a 70% partial liability -
110,000 x 30% compensation = R 33,000
The calulation goes on and say: your damages (A) R 42,000 ./. our damages (B) R 33,000 =
Final Settlement Offer R 9,000.00
Effective damages to "A" R 60,000 - pay out for compensation just R 9,000.00, which is only 15 % of the fair repair costs.
Sample 2
Damages of vehicle "A" amounts to R 130,000 with a 60% partial liability -
130,000 x 60% compensation = R 78,000
Damages of vehicle "B" amounts to R 45,000 with a 40% partial liability -
45,000 x 40% compensation = R 18,000
The calulation goes on and say: your damages (A) R 78,000 - our damages (B) R 18,000 =
Final Settlement Offer R 60,000.00
Effective damages to "A" R 130,000 - pay out for compensation just R 60,000.00, which is not only the half of the repair cost.
Sample 3
Damages of vehicle "A" amounts to R 50,000 with a 60% partial liability -
50,000 x 60% compensation = R 30,000
Damages of vehicle "B" amounts to R 145,000 with a 40% partial liability -
145,000 x 40% compensation = R 58,000
The calulation goes on and say: your damages (A) R 30,000 - our damages (B) R 58,000 =
Final Settlement Offer - (minus) R 28,000.00
Effective damages to "A" R 50,000 - pay out for compensation just R 000.00, but demand a repay to the Insurer of R 28,000, to curtail the Insurers contribution.
As (in sample 3) the value of damages "A" suffered, are lower as those of "B" and "A" is accused to be liable to contribute only 40% in compensation (60% in the right, 40% in the wrong) and "B" liable for the major share of 60% (40% in the right, 60% in the wrong) must contribute 60% in compensation, the effective result for the motorist in the overwhelming right will be a pay instead of compensation, due to the much higher damage value of "B".
This isn't phantasy, it's real and can happen to anyone, if just in an accident where the other car is much younger or far more expensive than the own one.
|
|
RAMLA can help clients in all MVA matters to solve problems professionally, claims, disputes (3rd party / comprehensive Insurance cover), review of declines with the Ombudsman (OSTI) and defensive actions against unreasonable or inflated claims, professional - affordable. Contact RAMLA for your support to have a damage claim paid or defenced. Contact
|
|
Being dragged into partly liability is just all too easy and arguing only 30% liable, does not seams too much of a hassle at a first glance, as the other still accept 70% of liability, which sounds not too bad.
But unfortunately, as the example above shows, you only receive R 9 000 for your R 60 000 damages and A cannot repair the motor car damage for the amount offered.
Being partly liable, should only be accepted, if the other can effectively proof, you have indeed contributed to the cause of the accident and being correctly blamed for the percentage of liability, corresponding to the degree of fault, you found liable for the cause of the road accident.
As mentioned on other places of this page or other sections, the most common deciders are motor insurance claim technicians, who not necessarily does have the final legal qualifications to find the correct apportioning and further they aren't unbiased as they too often just listen to the clients version of the matter or cite any sort of case law, commonly not applicable but at least not 1:1, for the decision, which will be very negatively for a claimant and therefore should not be accepted easily.
Once you are in doubt all will be fair and correct and you need help, contact RAMLA for support.
Back Page Selection
Back Legal issues Selection
Back Legal Matters Site Map
Contact RAMLA . . . for your free initial case analyse Now
Know more about the free first case analyses before contacting RAMLA?
Must alleged partly liability be accepted once suspected?
As the word suspected already expresses, it's not a proven matter and it should not be accepted, without good reasons to be convinced to do so.
The apportioning of liability act exists, but it's a statute with wide interpretation possibilities, as to the individual situation and only qualified officials such as Judges or Magistrates should have the final competence to decide, if matters cannot be solved out of court.
Not taking the option to go to a court of law for an unbiased decision is very unreasonable and effective chances missed out easily, as some motor insurance companies don't even engage into a strong case pending, letting the matter go for an easy process in order to avoid or create a precedent.
Liability is one of the key questions in any case of car accidents.
Determination of liability at all, will be a matter for those, dealing with motor accident cases daily, but as mentioned above, not all are interested in a fair investigation and decision.
Analysing partial liability, who will be liable for what in a traffic accident, referring to the cause and the damages, will even be more complicated to decide unbiased and correct.
The question here is, must a party accept any attempt of another, blaming for partial liability in saying more than one party has been at fault, or having driven the motor car negligent, not abided the rules of the road etc., the answer is - no - not necessarily, but certainly depending on the situation.
Blaming another being partly liable is very easy and can have far reaching consequences.
Once a motorist will be accused of being contributable in or for the cause of a vehicle accident, we strongly recommend being on alert. It can cost a lot of money, if one will be held contributable liable and not being it.
It must be known and recognised, no one can hold another legally liable or compel someone to accept any decision or allegations, for anything by private action, no party, no insurance company or no attorney nor any other, except of a learned judge within a case in a court of law, can do so by powers given to him.
But if the facts will support the element of partial liability, once critically scrutinised, and the degree of liability will be fair, a settlement on such basis can or should be found, out of court.
Back Page Selection
Back Legal issues Selection
Back Legal Matters Site Map
Contact RAMLA . . . for your free initial case analyse Now
Know more about the free first case analyses before contacting RAMLA?
APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES ACT NO. 34 OF 1956
" Please Note: Version as at 5 February 2009. Please check with our librarians help@lawlibrary .co.za if there have been any further revisions before relying on this .
" Applicable Regulations can be obtained from our librarians at help@lawlibrary.co.za
APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES ACT
NO. 34 OF 1956
[ASSENTED TO 16 MAY, 1956]
[DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE, 1956]
(English text signed by the Governor-General)
This Act has been updated to Government Gazette 17477 dated 4 October, 1996.
as amended by
Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act, No. 58 of 1971
Matrimonial Property Act, No. 88 of 1984
[with effect from 1 November, 1984]
Justice Laws Rationalisation Act, No. 18 of 1996
[with effect from 1 April 1997]
General Law Amendment Act, No. 49 of 1996
[with effect from 4 October 1996]
ACT
To amend the law relating to contributory negligence and the law relating to the liability of persons jointly or severally liable in delict for the same damage, and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
CHAPTER I
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
1. Apportionment of liability in case of contributory negligence
CHAPTER II
JOINT OR SEVERAL WRONGDOERS
2. Proceedings against and contributions between joint and several wrongdoers
3. Application of provisions of section 2 to liability imposed in terms of Act 29 of 1942
CHAPTER III
GENERAL
4. Savings
5. This Act binds the State
6. . . . . . .
7. Short title
CHAPTER I
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
1. Apportionment of liability in case of contributory negligence.-
(1)
(a) Where any person suffers damage which is caused partly by his own fault and partly by the fault of any other person, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the claimant but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced by the court to such extent as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which the claimant was at fault in relation to the damage.
(b) Damage shall for the purpose of paragraph (a) be regarded as having been caused by a person's fault notwithstanding the fact that another person had an opportunity of avoiding the consequences thereof and negligently failed to do so.
(2) Where in any case to which the provisions of subsection (1) apply, one of the persons at fault avoids liability to any claimant by pleading and proving that the time within which proceedings should have been instituted or notice should have been given in connection with such proceedings in terms of any law, has been exceeded, such person shall not by virtue of the provisions of the said subsection, be entitled to recover damages from that claimant.
(3) For the purposes of this section "fault" includes any act or omission which would, but for the provisions of this section, have given rise to the defence of contributory negligence.
CHAPTER II
JOINT OR SEVERAL WRONGDOERS
2. Proceedings against and contributions between joint and several wrongdoers.-
(1) Where it is alleged that two or more persons are jointly or severally liable in delict to a third person (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for the same damage, such persons (hereinafter referred to as joint wrongdoers) may be sued in the same action.
(1A) A person shall for the purposes of this section be regarded as a joint wrongdoer if he would have been a joint wrongdoer but for the fact that he is married in community of property to the plaintiff.
[Sub-s. (1A) inserted by s. 1 (a) of Act No. 58 of 1971 and substituted by s. 33 (a) of Act No. 88 of 1984.]
(1B) Subject to the provisions of the second proviso to subsection (6) (a), if it is alleged that the plaintiff has suffered damage as a result of any injury to or the death of any person and that such injury or death was caused partly by the fault of such injured or deceased person and partly by the fault of any other person, such injured person or the estate of such deceased person, as the case may be, and such other person shall for the purposes of this section be regarded as joint wrongdoers.
[Sub-s. (1B) inserted by s. 1 (a) of Act No. 58 of 1971.]
(2) Notice of any action may at any time before the close of pleadings in that action be given-
(a)by the plaintiff;
(b)by any joint wrongdoer who is sued in that action,
to any joint wrongdoer who is not sued in that action, and such joint wrongdoer may thereupon intervene as a defendant in that action.
(3) The court may on the application of the plaintiff or any joint wrongdoer in any action order that separate trials be held, or make such other order in this regard as it may consider just and expedient.
(4)
(a) If a joint wrongdoer is not sued in an action instituted against another joint wrongdoer and no notice is given to him in terms of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the plaintiff shall not thereafter sue him except with the leave of the court on good cause shown as to why notice was not given as aforesaid.
(b) If no notice is under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) given to a joint wrongdoer who is not sued by the plaintiff, no proceedings for a contribution shall be instituted against him under subsection (6) or (7) by any joint wrongdoer except with the leave of the court on good cause shown as to why notice was not given to him under paragraph (b) of subsection (2).
(5) In any subsequent action against another joint wrongdoer, any amount recovered from any joint wrongdoer in a former action shall be deemed to have been applied towards the payment of the costs awarded in the former action in priority to the liquidation of the damages awarded in that action.
(6)
(a) If judgment is in any action given against any joint wrongdoer for the full amount of the damage suffered by the plaintiff, the said joint wrongdoer may, if the judgment debt has been paid in full, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), recover from any other joint wrongdoer a contribution in respect of his responsibility for such damage of such an amount as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which that other joint wrongdoer was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff, and to the damages awarded: Provided further that if the court, in determining the full amount of the damage suffered by the plaintiff referred to in subsection (1B), deducts from the estimated value of the support of which the plaintiff has been deprived by reason of the death of any person, the value of any benefit which the plaintiff has acquired from the estate of such deceased person no contribution which the said joint wrongdoer may so recover from the estate of the said deceased person shall deprive the plaintiff of the said benefit or any portion thereof.
[Para.
(a) amended by s. 1 (b) of Act No. 58 of 1971 and by s. 33 (b) of Act No. 88 of 1984.]
(b) The period of extinctive prescription in respect of a claim for a contribution shall be twelve months calculated from the date of the judgment in respect of which a contribution is claimed or, where an appeal is made against such judgment, the date of the final judgment on appeal: Provided that if, in the case of any joint wrongdoer, the period of extinctive prescription in relation to any action which may be instituted against him by the plaintiff, is governed by a law which prescribes a period of less than twelve months as the period within which legal proceedings shall be instituted against him or within which notice shall be given that proceedings will be instituted against him, the provisions of such law shall apply mutatis mutandis in relation to any action for a contribution by a joint wrongdoer, the period or periods concerned being calculated from the date of the judgment as aforesaid instead of from the date of the original cause of action.
(c) Any joint wrongdoer from whom a contribution is claimed may raise against the joint wrongdoer who claims the contribution any defence which the latter could have raised against the plaintiff.
(7)
(a) If judgment is in any action given against one or more joint wrongdoers in respect of the damage suffered by the plaintiff, any joint wrongdoer who in pursuance of such judgment pays to the plaintiff in respect of his responsibility for such damage an amount in excess of the amount (hereinafter referred to as the amount apportioned to the firstmentioned joint wrongdoer) which the court deems just and equitable having regard to the degree in which he was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff and to the full amount of the damages awarded to the plaintiff, may, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), recover from any other joint wrongdoer a contribution in respect of the latter's responsibility for such damage of an amount not exceeding so much of the amount which the court deems just and equitable having regard to the degree in which such other joint wrongdoer was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff and to the full amount of the damages awarded to the plaintiff, as has not been paid by such other joint wrongdoer to the plaintiff or to any other joint wrongdoer, or so much of the amount paid by the firstmentioned joint wrongdoer as exceeds the amount apportioned to him, whichever is less.
(b) The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any claim for a contribution under paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(8)
(a) If judgment is in any action given in favour of the plaintiff against two or more joint wrongdoers, the court may-
(i)
order that such joint wrongdoers pay the amount of the damages awarded jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved;
(ii)
if it is satisfied that all the joint wrongdoers have been joined in the action, apportion the damages awarded against the said joint wrongdoers in such proportions as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which each joint wrongdoer was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff, and give judgment separately against each joint wrongdoer for the amount so apportioned: Provided that any amount which the plaintiff is unable to recover from any joint wrongdoer under a judgment so given (including any costs incurred by the plaintiff in an attempt to recover the said amount and not recovered from the said joint wrongdoer) whether by reason of the said joint wrongdoer's insolvency or otherwise, may be recovered by the plaintiff from the other joint wrongdoer or, if there are two or more other joint wrongdoers, from those other joint wrongdoers in such proportions as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which each of those other joint wrongdoers was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff;
(iii)
where it gives judgment against the joint wrongdoers jointly and severally as aforesaid, at the request of any one of the joint wrongdoers, apportion, for the purposes of paragraph (b), the damages payable by the joint wrongdoers inter se, amongst the joint wrongdoers, in such proportions as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which each joint wrongdoer was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff;
(iv)
make such order as to costs as it may consider just, including an order that the joint wrongdoers against whom it gives judgment shall pay the plaintiff's costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, and that if one of the unsuccessful joint wrongdoers pays more than his pro rata share of the plaintiff's costs, that he shall be entitled to recover from each of the other unsuccessful joint wrongdoers his pro rata share of such excess.
(b) Any joint wrongdoer who pays more than the amount apportioned to him under subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) may recover from any joint wrongdoer who has paid less than or nothing of the amount so apportioned to him, a contribution of an amount not exceeding so much of the amount so apportioned to the last mentioned joint wrongdoer as has not been paid by him, or so much of the amount paid by the first mentioned joint wrongdoer as exceeds the amount so apportioned to him, whichever is less.
(c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any claim for a contribution under paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(9) If judgment is given in favour of any joint wrongdoer or if any joint wrongdoer is absolved from the instance, the court may make such order as to costs as it may consider just, including an order-
(a)
that the plaintiff pay such joint wrongdoer's costs; or
(b)
that the unsuccessful joint wrongdoers pay the costs of the successful joint wrongdoer jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, and that if one of the unsuccessful joint wrongdoers pays more than his pro rata share of the costs of the successful joint wrongdoer, that he shall be entitled to recover from each of the other unsuccessful joint wrongdoers his pro rata share of such excess, and that if the successful joint wrongdoer is unable to recover the whole or any part of his costs from the unsuccessful joint wrongdoers, that he shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff such part of his costs as he is unable to recover from the unsuccessful joint wrongdoers.
(10) If by reason of the terms of an agreement between a joint wrongdoer and the plaintiff the former is exempt from liability for the damage suffered by the plaintiff or his liability therefor is limited to an agreed amount, so much of that portion of the damages which, but for the said agreement and the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) or paragraph (b) of subsection (7), could have been recovered from the said joint wrongdoer in terms of subsection (6) or (7) or could have been apportioned to him in terms of subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (8), as exceeds the amount, if any, for which he is liable in terms of the said agreement, shall not be recoverable by the plaintiff from any other joint wrongdoer.
(11)
(a) Whenever a joint wrongdoer who is entitled under any provision of this section to recover a contribution from another joint wrongdoer, is unable to recover that contribution or any amount thereof from that other joint wrongdoer, whether by reason of the latter's insolvency or otherwise, he may recover from any other joint wrongdoer such portion of that contribution or that amount thereof as the court may deem just and equitable having regard to the degree in which that other joint wrongdoer was at fault in relation to the damage suffered by the plaintiff and to the full amount of the said contribution or the said amount thereof, as the case may be.
(b) Any costs incurred by a joint wrongdoer in an attempt to recover any contribution from any other joint wrongdoer, and not recovered from that joint wrongdoer, shall for the purpose of paragraph (a), be added to the amount of that contribution.
(12) If any joint wrongdoer agrees to pay to the plaintiff a sum of money in full settlement of the plaintiff's claim, the provisions of subsection (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis as if judgment had been given by a competent court against such joint wrongdoer for that sum of money, or, if the court is satisfied that the full amount of the damage actually suffered by the plaintiff is less than that sum of money, for such sum of money as the court determines to be equal to the full amount of the damage actually suffered by the plaintiff, and in the application of the provisions of paragraph (b) of the said subsection (6), any reference therein to the date of the judgment shall be construed as a reference to the date of the agreement.
(13) Whenever judgment is in any action given against any joint wrongdoer for the full amount of the damage suffered by the plaintiff, or whenever any joint wrongdoer has agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of money in full settlement of the plaintiff's claim, and the judgment debt or the said sum of money has been paid in full, every other joint wrongdoer shall thereby also be discharged from any further liability towards the plaintiff.
(14) A person shall for the purposes of this section be regarded as a joint wrongdoer notwithstanding the fact that another person had an opportunity of avoiding the consequences of his wrongful act and negligently failed to do so.
3. Application of provisions of section 2 to liability imposed in terms of Act 29 of 1942.
-The provisions of section two shall apply also in relation to any liability imposed in terms of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, 1986 (Act No. 84 of 1986), on the State or any person in respect of loss or damage caused by or arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle.
[S. 3 amended by s. 4 of Act No. 18 of 1996.]
CHAPTER III
GENERAL
4. Savings.-(1) The provisions of this Act shall not-
(a)
apply in respect of any wrongful act committed before the commencement of this Act;
(b)
operate to defeat any defence arising under a contract;
(c)
operate to increase the amount of damages beyond any maximum prescribed in any agreement or any law applicable in respect of any claim for damages.
(2) Nothing in this Act contained shall derogate in any manner from the provisions of any law relating to collisions or accidents at sea, or of any rule of court promulgated before the commencement of this Act under section one hundred and eight of the South Africa Act, 1909.
[Sub-s. (2) amended by s. 1 of Act No. 49 of 1996.]
5. This Act binds the State.-This Act binds the State.
6. . . . . . .
[S. 6 substituted by s. 2 of Act No. 58 of 1971 and repealed by s. 1 of Act No. 49 of 1996.]
7. Short title.-This Act shall be called the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956.
|
|
|
|
|
RAMLA - Road Accident Management and Legal Action - is one of South Africa's most experienced and decisive advocates to sort out legal disputes with parties, Insurance companies or act in defence for clients, confronted with unreasonable or inflated claims.
Car accident issues that matters most:
We are legal specialist in motor car accident damage recovery matters and offer our services to those suffering damages or in need to defend unreasonable or inflated claims.
Taking on disputes with motor insurance companies, engage and solve unfair declines or incorrect apportionment of damages, oppose a wrong assessed Quantum, or take a matter on review with the Ombudsman (OSTI), to get a matter of comprehensive insurance dispute reviewed.
Sometimes, if a matter cannot be resolved in a full attempt, and the case need to be heard in a court of law, should all fail to find a solution in pre-litigation, the escalation to a court of law is inevitable, we will suppot the action.
RAMLA can get you through the trouble, get reluctant parties moving serving Summons, for just some affordable fees, commonly just equal or lower then towing/storage cost may be.
We are one of the most experienced, decisive advocates, when it comes to car accident problems - issues of compensation or defence against unreasonable or inflated claims, bad repair practice and much more.
We work only on motor car accident matters.
Check us out, so you do know if we can uphold we say, free of charge.
Welcome to RAMLA
Road Accicent Management & Legal Action - South Africa
|
|
RAMLA - is an experienced legal expert in most MVA - Motor Vehicle Accident - issues.
We act professionally and decisive for the - Demand of damage Compensation - Dispute Resolution - Defence against inflated or unreasonable claims, as well as for damage recovery caused by bad workmanship after car repairs.
With more than ten years of professional experience, well educated stuff, knowing the subject of car accident issues and solutions, we have advised many, many inquirers in the first steps to take for a solution,
- free of charge - ,
and over the years, served a high number of clients to solve differences with parties, addressed compensation actions, acted against unfair Motor Insurance declines or short falling settlement offers, pursuit reviews with the Industries Ombudsman and filed law suits and defences.
RAMLA do know very well, that all cases are individual and need particular attention to the details, as only a well structured and factual claim can have chances to success. With us, you can feel save.
If you valued visitor of the RAMLA web information platform, do have any such problems listed above, you may well be good advised to contact us and brief us - best by email - with what had happened and may be your problem.
Our initial reply and advice will be free of any charges or obligations,
but an active pursuit of a claim or defence will come with some smaller fees.
|
|
How going forward once there is a claim or dispute or other challenges?
Well, once someone checks a web site as this one RAMLA presents, there will be some sort of a problem.
Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) issues are manifold and can be complex.
It may either be that there is no response from the liable party or the Insurer, the other party repudiate, apportioning damage liability leading to a short falling compensation offer, or any other claim decline, such as to violation of Insurance terms and conditions. All need experienced attention.
There are even cases, where a claim is directed to a 3rd party, deemed liable and demanded, but no engagement noticed.
Lot of issues coming up in MVA - car accident matters, may not be handled according to valid law, or wrongly interpreted.
There are many people in South Africa's motor insurance industry, without a legal background and act under instructions, don't care, nor perhaps not having the necessary skills, or just follow a strategy, to get rid of valid claims.
Such should not be accepted and the challenge taken head on, even if it comes with some engagement.
RAMLA as a specialised legal expert can solve such problems, just for a fraction in fees what you may miss out, if you don't have the right support.
In our view, it is not the correct way and get a legitimate claimant's demand, just been brushed away, isn't it?
Just take the time and contact, tell us about the matter and let us take care of it.
|
|
|
|
Defence against unreasonable or inflated claims?
RAMLA can help you most effectively to get a claim dropped or eased.
The results defending someone against whatever car accident compensation claim, can be very good, as often the evidence the Claimant do have is not sufficient to proof the claim, which is a pre-requisite for a successful action.
If it isn't as clear what the implications are and what evidence the other party/Insurance do have, chances are very good to stand through and get a claim successfully denied, even if a summons may have be served already.
The party alleges or accuses is forced to proof the claim and not the demanded party.
Many Insurance recovery claims fall short of such reliable evidence and therefore can be repudiated, even if it comes from attorneys or recovery agents.
|
|
|
|
However we do handle every substantial MVA claim,
against whatever party, Insurance, reluctant party or company successfully, given the merits of the issue are clear and stand a challenge.
Should the merits not be so favourable in the first place, we do all we can, improving such merits, to get the matter being a strong case.
|
|
|
|
Chances of success, if there is a strong case, and any other winning guarantees?
Those are questions we hear frequently, before a new client is prepared to accept some fees.
There cannot be any guarantee of success in legal matters, as the other party may have evidence matching or being better proof. If it comes to an action in a court of law, the presiding officer is the instance of weighting all brought forward in the action and decides.
However if sufficient evidence is at hand, chances are high to predict a win and succeeding with a matter, which ends up in an acceptable settlement/judgement.
|
|
|
|
You want to visit a local RAMLA office in your area and have a chat with one of our experts?
We are very sorry telling you, that we have chosen a different way of performing our business.
In order to hold overhead costs low, and not compromise on expertise and service, we have decided to act from one central, but not public office, in the Western Cape.
In order to hold fees low and offer very competitive rates, compared with similar legal services, we decided to concentrate intelligence and contain costs in this manner.
Anyone who likes to visit his/her adviser or attorney, should not choose RAMLA as a favourite, as we cannot or want honour just that.
But we can deliver the way we operate effectively, wherever you are in South Africa and with whom ever we have to deal, effectively, decisive and affordable.
|
|
|
|
What about fees, must they be paid upfront or can it be deducted from recoveries?
Let me answer the question in short.
Yes, all fees need to be paid up before we take action.
Why is that so?
Our fees are as competitive low, that we cannot enforce any such fees economically, if someone just take our services and thereafter give us hassles to pay.
Any local attorney will do the same, as asking for a deposit, commonly far higher than our entire fees are, upfront.
In general those deposits are offset against fee notes and further deposits requested in due course.
We dont do that. We deliver services not billed on time issues, but on performance phases, which gives cost certainty and the assurance to be taken care of the full matter.
Contact us to get more detailed information.
|
|
|
|
Any doubts about our capabilities or performance as this offer is an anonymous one on the web?
Well I must accept such doubts and can only point out and rely on the many we served before and who may be contactable for reference.
Check out what we display on our comprehensive web pages, which will back up our knowledge and experience without a doubt.
Anyhow we will never accept a mandate before we have had a first free analyse of your particular matter and if you aren't satisfied with our reply, simply don't go on with us, despite it may be detrimental to you.
We value a fair and open informative strategy, keeping a client updated, which will please most of those with an open mind to comunication technologies, such as email etc.
But we can only do what we offer and if you aren't happy with such offer, just get into contact with your local lawyer, or ask us to refer you to someone with specialised knowledge in MVA matters.
|
|
|
|
Should you have been through all before . . .
and still think we can be the one to solve your motor vehicle accident compensation problem in South Africa, just get in contact with us.
You're welcome to be served perfectly.
Kind Regards
Your RAMLA team
Nationwide Claim Service
SMS RAMLA to 076 770 3179
and let us know the problem, or much better send an e-mail to:
ramla@ramla.co.za
|
|
RAMLA Expert Partnership
Become a local partner of our Nationwide Network of experts in adjacent industries, such as:
Legal profession
Panel beater or auto
body repair workshops
Independent vehicle
damage assessors
enhancing mutual business at no cost to either side.
Please follow the link to the industry above to learn more about the offer.
SMS "network" your name and industry, place of business to 076 770 3179
and we call you, or send to
e-mail info@ramla.co.za
|
|
Motor Insurance Disputes
An insurance claim, either as a third party or comprehensive claim can come with a number of challenges.
Having the knowledge and experience, is a prerequisite to stand through against sometimes very strange arguments or decisions utilised by South African Motor Insurance Companies or its Brokers.
|
|
|
|
Ombudsman for short term Insurance (OSTI)
The Ombudsman for short term insurance disputes (OSTI) reviews matters that emanates from Insurance policy differences or disputes.
That means only contractual issues can be given for review and no 3rd party claims issues can be addressed to the Ombudsman.
Many people believe in objectivity and sympathies the Ombudsman may have to issues, believed to have been made unfairly by any Insurance decider.
It must however not always be expected that OSTI is in favour of Insurance clients to protect their rights.
Too often the decisions taken by the Ombudsman's office are backing the Insurance decision, particularly so as the evidence provided hasn't rebutted the Insurers argument, due to lack of knowledge.
The often one-sided information provided by the Insurer, even without verification, is taken for the decision, if a client in need for help doesn't know how to repudiate false or weak allegations and the matter will most probably be lost and the Insurer rests relaxed.
The Institution of the OSTI office is financed by the Insurance Industry.
|
|
|
|
A reluctant party try to hide and not engage?
Don't allow a party to act in such manner. A liable driver must take responsibility, but it can be a challenge if you have been too patient or trustful of promises and the other do know how to make you struggle.
It must be noted that a claim is easier declined than proven, and factual proof is what is meant the claimant has the onus of proof.
|
|
|
|
Companies don't engaging into claims they are vicariously liable for its employees
Companies are in some circumstances responsible and vicariously liable for employee's action and damages, if in charge for the business.
Despite most such companies may maintain a valid insurance cover, not many are open to an amicable solution and reluctant to support a claim.
The problem may just be that those who employ personal which need take part in public traffic in order to do the job get too much involved in car accidents throughout the employee's mistakes and don't like seeing the insurance cover in danger or face higher risk premiums.
There are commonly more difficulties to get matters processed as if claiming against a private person.
Our advice, get support as soon you feel something may not go as expected.
|
|
|
|
Alcohol or drugs a driver has abused but driving a car under the influence and causing the accident
Alcohol or Drugs shouldn't be consumed when on the road, for good reasons, and prohibited by law.
Once alcohol or drugs are suspected or proven, any insurance cover will lapse and no compensation can be expected covered by any Insurance.
However, the misuse of drugs and or alcohol must be proven in a professional manner.
It will not be acceptable, if an Insurer or another party just allege the other being intoxicated.
No witness or any observer can detect any or the degree of intoxication, even if they are medics, without scientific analyses, there is no proof.
Breathalyser and professional medical laboratory tests must show if any intoxication and to what degree, to get a claim declined or even to make one against another.
|
|
|
|
Market value, trade and retail value, scrap or salvage are all part in a "write off" case
When it comes to more serious car accident damages often repair costs are high. Should repair costs exceed the market or pre-collision value of the motor car, it will be called a "write off".
Unfortunately many of those been written off is caused by a decision of an Insurer.
The manner in which the car values of a highly damaged vehicle being evaluated, is by applying value schemes, often inappropriate schemes or wrong assessment results should be challenged.
A write off can cause many hassles in some regards.
There are some value schemes offering private persons a one time free value check.
Below as an example, TransUnion Car Value
www.carvalue.co.za
Anther source will be www.book-value.co.za as well as www.autotrader.co.za
TransUnion Car Value Scheme
www.carvalue.co.za
|
|
|
