H v Preller Plain Apteek (5900/2008) [2018] ZAFSHC 111 (29 June 2018)

H v Preller Plain Apteek (5900/2008) [2018] ZAFSHC 111 (29 June 2018)

The court found that the defendant's employee acted negligently in administering the injection to the plaintiff in the sacral area, contrary to accepted medical protocol and with insufficient training. The evidence, including expert testimony, established that the injection was administered in the midline over the sacrum with a needle capable of reaching the nerve, precipitating an epileptic fit and disc prolapse. The court preferred the reasoning of the plaintiff's expert, who provided a logical and comprehensive explanation of causation, over the defendant's experts, whose opinions were either outside their field or based on incomplete facts. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 111
Parties
Plaintiff: B H; Defendant: PRELLER PLAIN APTEEK
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
5900/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Determination of Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant found liable for damages arising from negligent administration of injection; quantum to be determined separately.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Epileptic Fit, Disc Prolapse
Delict Medical Negligence Causation Standard of Care Expert Evidence Epileptic Fit Disc Prolapse

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B H

Plaintiff

PRELLER PLAIN APTEEK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Determination of Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's employee was negligent in administering the injection to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the injection caused the plaintiff to suffer an epileptic fit and prolapse of the L5-S1 disc.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the alleged negligent conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's employee acted negligently in administering the injection to the plaintiff in the sacral area, contrary to accepted medical protocol and with insufficient training. The evidence, including expert testimony, established that the injection was administered in the midline over the sacrum with a needle capable of reaching the nerve, precipitating an epileptic fit and disc prolapse. The court preferred the reasoning of the plaintiff's expert, who provided a logical and comprehensive explanation of causation, over the defendant's experts, whose opinions were either outside their field or based on incomplete facts. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving...

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for damages arising from negligent administration of injection; quantum to be determined separately.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff in respect of any damages as the plaintiff is able to prove in due course.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of suit, as taxed or agreed upon on a party and party scale, including the costs of employment of two counsel and the reasonable and necessary travelling, accommodation, and qualifying expenses of Dr Willem Edeling (neurosurgeon).