Harte and Fisher v Aucamp (732/92) [1994] ZASCA 109 (12 September 1994)

Harte and Fisher v Aucamp (732/92) [1994] ZASCA 109 (12 September 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Harte, as an experienced veterinarian, failed to specify that copper sulphate should be administered as a 10% solution, and that his advice was ambiguous and negligent. The respondent, familiar with the use of copper sulphate solution, acted on Harte's advice in good faith and administered the crystals as instructed, resulting in the death of the sheep. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent misunderstood or misheard the advice, finding that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The evidence did not support the contention that excessive dosing by the stockman was the cause of death, as the quantities...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: Harte and Fisher; Respondent: Jan Christoffel Aucamp
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 1994
Case Number
732/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha, EM Grosskopf, Howie
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Causation, Veterinary Advice, Quantum of Damages
Delict Professional Negligence Causation Veterinary Advice Quantum of Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harte and Fisher

Appellant

Jan Christoffel Aucamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Harte negligent in advising the use of copper sulphate without specifying it should be administered as a 10% solution?
  2. 2 Did such negligence cause the death of the respondent's sheep?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Harte, as an experienced veterinarian, failed to specify that copper sulphate should be administered as a 10% solution, and that his advice was ambiguous and negligent. The respondent, familiar with the use of copper sulphate solution, acted on Harte's advice in good faith and administered the crystals as instructed, resulting in the death of the sheep. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent misunderstood or misheard the advice, finding that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The evidence did not support the contention that excessive dosing by the stockman was the cause of death, as the quantities...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.