du Preez N.O obo B.R.S v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 109 (12 February 2024)

du Preez N.O obo B.R.S v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 109 (12 February 2024)

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to monitor the drip site for ten hours, given the minor's history of extravasation and the risk posed by the vesicant in the TPN. Expert evidence, including joint minutes, established that the standard of care was substandard and directly caused the minor's permanent injuries. The defendant did not repudiate the joint minutes, and its own expert ultimately conceded that the care provided during the relevant period was inferior to previous care. The principle that 'if it is not recorded, it has not been done' was accepted, and the absence of records indicated a lack of monitoring. The court accepted the opinions of the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 109
Parties
Plaintiff: Adv W du Preez N.O. obo B[...] R[...] S[...]; Defendant: MEC for Health, Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2024
Case Number
58051/2018
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Liability Trial; Quantum Separated and Held Over
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for delictual damages succeeds; defendant found negligent and liable for damages.
Judges
Bam
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, State Liability Act, Joint Minutes, Assessment of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Family and Children Medical Negligence Standard of Care Expert Evidence State Liability Act Joint Minutes +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adv W du Preez N.O. obo B[...] R[...] S[...]

Plaintiff

MEC for Health, Gauteng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Liability Trial; Quantum Separated and Held Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in the treatment, care and management of the minor.
  2. 2 Whether the minor's injuries were caused by the defendant's negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for delictual damages arising from the injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to monitor the drip site for ten hours, given the minor's history of extravasation and the risk posed by the vesicant in the TPN. Expert evidence, including joint minutes, established that the standard of care was substandard and directly caused the minor's permanent injuries. The defendant did not repudiate the joint minutes, and its own expert ultimately conceded that the care provided during the relevant period was inferior to previous care. The principle that 'if it is not recorded, it has not been done' was accepted, and the absence of records indicated a lack of monitoring. The court accepted the opinions of the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for delictual damages succeeds; defendant found negligent and liable for damages.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's case succeeds with costs.
  • The defendant must pay the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages.