THE POSITION OF THE BLACK LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND ACT 56 OF 1996.
1. LUMP SUM PAYMENTS
The BLA is opposed to the abolishing of lump sum payments.
2.LIMITATION OF MEDICAL COSTS TO TARIFF
The BLA is opposed to the limitation of medical treatment to tariff. It is common knowledge that most medical practitioners and hospitals contract outside medical tariffs. The insistence to limit medical costs to tariff would prejudice the claimants when making use of the undertaking.
The BLA does not have difficulties with the present position relating to death benefits which are derived as a result of a condition of employment. The BLA does, however, oppose the inclusion of collateral benefits from whatsoever source as contemplated in Section 17 B. Collateral benefits that have been procured by an individual person or deceased should not be taken into consideration in calculating the loss of the injured person or the loss of support occasioned as a result of the death of the breadwinner.
4. LIMITATION OF CLAIMS OF NON-RESIDENCE
The BLA have no difficulty with the limitation of claims for non-residence and suggest non-residence should be required to take compulsory insurance.
5. CLAIMS FOR EMOTIONAL SHOCK
The BLA does not oppose this amendment.
6. ISSUEING OF SUMMONS
The BLA is opposed to placing conditions before summons can be issued particularly the inclusion of the provisions of Section 19(f) as a condition precedent to the issue of summons.
7. RETROSPECTIVITY OF THE ACT
The BLA opposes that the provisions of the act should be retrospective irrespective of the operations of the amendments.