Mr M, an architect, was driving in his Suzuki Jimny on the N1 highway between Pretoria and Johannesburg on 1 September 2019. He was adhering to the speed limit and noticed in his rear mirror that a Mercedes was approaching him from behind. The Mercedes overtook him, but suddenly swerved into the lane where Mr M was driving. Mr M tried to avoid the Mercedes hitting his car, swerved to the right and struck the steel crash barrier in the middle of the highway. Mr M sustained a broken nose and disfigurement of his face, as well as brain injuries that effect his physical abilities and psychological functioning to such an extent that he can no longer practise as an architect. At the time of the accident, Mr M was self-employed and earned R60 000 per month. As a result of the accident, Mr M was unable to work and was hospitalised for 2 months. According to the neurosurgeon and plastic surgeon, Mr M still needs extensive surgery. Mr M was self- conscious about his appearance and depressed. His personal appearance is important in his line of work. Mr M consults with you, an attorney who specialises in RAF claims, to act on his behalf. 3.1 3.3 Advise Mr M on the damages that he will be entitled to claim form the RAF as well as the documentary evidence that he must provide in order to succeed with his claims. (10) 3.2 Since Mr M is self-employed as an architect, indicate how the court will assess his claim for loss of past income and earnings. (10) Explain in detail to Mr M whether he may claim compensation for loss of future income and earning capacity. In your answer you must clearly distinguish between these two concepts. (10) Use the same set of facts, but assume that a year after summons was issued and served on the RAF, Mr M dies. The post mortem confirms that the head injuries Mr M sustained during the accident caused his death. Mr M leaves behind a wife and two sons. Mr M was also the breadwinner of the household. Advise Mrs M on the nature of the assessment of further claims she may institute against the RAF. Refer to relevant case law in your answer. 3.4 (10)