Brits v B Braun Medical (EDMS) BPK (17666/2005) [2010] ZAGPPHC 301 (10 February 2010)

Brits v B Braun Medical (EDMS) BPK (17666/2005) [2010] ZAGPPHC 301 (10 February 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the material facts giving rise to her claim as early as October 2001, when the first pin broke and was replaced. The plaintiff's awareness of the broken pin, the involvement of the defendant, and the resulting damages were sufficient to complete the cause of action for prescription purposes. The subsequent expert report was not required to trigger prescription, as expert opinion is evidence and not a fact necessary to establish the claim. Applying section 12 of the Prescription Act and the principles from Truter v Deysel, the court held that prescription began to run in October 2001 and expired in October...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 301
Parties
Plaintiff: Charlotte Maria Brits; Defendant: B Braun Medical (EDMS) BPK
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2010
Case Number
17666/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Adjudicated Before Merits
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's case postponed sine die.
Judges
Sithole
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Extinctive Prescription, Cause of Action, Expert Evidence, Medical Device Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Prescription Act Extinctive Prescription Cause of Action Expert Evidence Medical Device Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Maria Brits

Plaintiff

B Braun Medical (EDMS) BPK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Adjudicated Before Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription commence to run in respect of the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the first broken pin?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff have knowledge of the facts from which the debt arose before the expert report was obtained?
  3. 3 Is expert opinion necessary to complete the cause of action for prescription purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the material facts giving rise to her claim as early as October 2001, when the first pin broke and was replaced. The plaintiff's awareness of the broken pin, the involvement of the defendant, and the resulting damages were sufficient to complete the cause of action for prescription purposes. The subsequent expert report was not required to trigger prescription, as expert opinion is evidence and not a fact necessary to establish the claim. Applying section 12 of the Prescription Act and the principles from Truter v Deysel, the court held that prescription began to run in October 2001 and expired in October...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's case postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff's case is postponed sine die.