Legal Experts Challenge RAF's Standardised Compensation Proposal
Legal Experts Challenge RAF's Standardised Compensation Proposal
Blog Article
South Africa's Road Accident Fund (RAF) has recently faced significant criticism from leading personal injury law firms regarding its proposal to implement standardised formulae for calculating compensation forroad accident victims. Legal experts argue that this move not only misinterprets the RAF's statutory mandate but also undermines victims' rights by reducing their compensation to algorithm-driven social benefits rather than individualized legal entitlements.
RAF's Proposal: Automation Over Individual Assessment
The RAF aims to introduce an online interactive platform to automate the computation of settlement amounts based on standardised formulae. The Fund asserts that the current system, which involves assessments by medical, actuarial, and psychology experts, is time-consuming, inconsistent, and lacks transparency. They believe automation will bring efficiency, fairness, and transparency to the process.
Key Legal Objections
Legal experts have raised several concerns regarding this proposal:
Exceeding Legal Powers: The RAF is attempting to fundamentally alter the way damages are calculated without amending the RAF Act. According to the Act, the Minister of Transport—not the RAF—has the power to set regulations, and any significant changes require Parliament's approval. By acting unilaterally, the RAF is overstepping its legal authority.
Compensation as a Legal Right: The RAF's approach treats damages as a standardised "product," contradicting Section 3 of the RAF Act, which states that the Fund's objective is to provide compensation for "loss or damage wrongfully caused by the driving of motor vehicles." This necessitates assessing each victim's claim based on their unique circumstances.
Inadequacy of Standardised Algorithms: The proposal suggests placing victims into "cohorts" with compensation calculated using statistical models. Legal experts argue this approach disregards individual assessment, crucial for ensuring fair compensation. For instance, a high-earning professional and a low-income worker may receive similar payouts, despite significant differences in their actual loss of earnings.
Potential Increase in Litigation: While the RAF claims automation will reduce litigation, personal injury lawyers predict the opposite. If victims receive unfairly low compensation, they may resort to legal action against the RAF. Unlike human experts, an algorithm cannot be cross-examined or reasoned with, potentially leading to more lawsuits.
Broader Context and Concerns
This proposal is part of a broader initiative to restructure the RAF from a compensation-based model to a social benefits system. The draft Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill, 2023, suggests significant changes, including moving away from individual compensation assessments. BUSINESSTECH.CO.ZA
Critics argue that such changes could undermine the rights of road accident victims by limiting their access to fair compensation. They emphasize the importance of maintaining individualized assessments to ensure that victims receive compensation commensurate with their actual losses.
Conclusion
The RAF's proposal to standardise compensation calculations has sparked significant debate among legal experts. While the Fund aims to enhance efficiency and transparency, critics argue that the move could undermine victims' rights and lead to increased litigation. As the discussion continues, it remains crucial to balance the need for systemic efficiency with the imperative of fair and individualized compensation for road accident victims.