Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman (529/17) [2018] ZASCA 118; 2019 (2) SA 185 (SCA) (20 September 2018)

Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman (529/17) [2018] ZASCA 118; 2019 (2) SA 185 (SCA) (20 September 2018)

The court found that Dr Suliman owed a legal duty to the patient from the moment he agreed to cover for Dr Maise and gave instructions regarding her care. His failure to attend to the patient after being notified of her admission and subsequent developments constituted a breach of that duty. The evidence established, on a balance of probabilities, that had Dr Suliman attended the hospital earlier, the birth injuries suffered by the child would likely have been avoided. The court held that both the hospital and Dr Suliman were joint wrongdoers, but Dr Suliman's negligence was greater. Accordingly, damages were apportioned 60% to Dr Suliman and 40% to the hospital under the Apportionment of...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 118
Parties
Appellant: Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dr Abdool Samad Suliman
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
529/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an apportionment of damages: 40% to the hospital and 60% to Dr Suliman.
Judges
Shongwe, Majiedt, Seriti, Wallis, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Factual Causation, Apportionment of Damages Act, Contributory Negligence, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Factual Causation Apportionment of Damages Act Contributory Negligence Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Dr Abdool Samad Suliman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Suliman owed a legal duty to the patient upon agreeing to cover for Dr Maise.
  2. 2 Whether Dr Suliman breached the legal duty by failing to attend to the patient in a timely manner.
  3. 3 Whether Dr Suliman's negligence was causally linked to the birth injuries suffered by the child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Dr Suliman owed a legal duty to the patient from the moment he agreed to cover for Dr Maise and gave instructions regarding her care. His failure to attend to the patient after being notified of her admission and subsequent developments constituted a breach of that duty. The evidence established, on a balance of probabilities, that had Dr Suliman attended the hospital earlier, the birth injuries suffered by the child would likely have been avoided. The court held that both the hospital and Dr Suliman were joint wrongdoers, but Dr Suliman's negligence was greater. Accordingly, damages were apportioned 60% to Dr Suliman and 40% to the hospital under the Apportionment of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an apportionment of damages: 40% to the hospital and 60% to Dr Suliman.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs including the cost of two counsel where employed.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an apportionment of damages: the first defendant (hospital) is liable for 40% and the second defendant (Dr Suliman) for 60%.