Lomalisa v K.R.M (CIVAPPFB9/2014) [2017] ZANWHC 58 (17 August 2017)

Lomalisa v K.R.M (CIVAPPFB9/2014) [2017] ZANWHC 58 (17 August 2017)

The court held that the appellant was not negligent in his administration of Cytotec, as the dosage used was consistent with accepted medical practice in South African public hospitals at the relevant time. The appellant left clear instructions for monitoring and was available to intervene if called, but the nursing staff failed to properly monitor the respondent and report any abnormalities. There was no evidence that the appellant was called and failed to respond, nor was there proof that his conduct caused or materially contributed to the cerebral palsy suffered by the respondent's child. Expert evidence presented by the respondent was found to be speculative, lacking in direct causal...

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 58
Parties
Appellant: Dr. L. Lomalisa; Respondent: K. R. M.
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2017
Case Number
CIVAPPFB9/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced with dismissal of the claim against the appellant with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks, Samkelo Gura, N Gutta
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care, Expert Evidence, Obstetric Liability, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Family and Children Medical Negligence Causation Duty of Care Expert Evidence Obstetric Liability +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. L. Lomalisa

Appellant

K. R. M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, Dr. Lomalisa, was negligent in the administration of Cytotec and monitoring of the respondent during labour.
  2. 2 Whether there is a causal link between the alleged negligence and the cerebral palsy suffered by the respondent's child.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly found joint and several liability against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was not negligent in his administration of Cytotec, as the dosage used was consistent with accepted medical practice in South African public hospitals at the relevant time. The appellant left clear instructions for monitoring and was available to intervene if called, but the nursing staff failed to properly monitor the respondent and report any abnormalities. There was no evidence that the appellant was called and failed to respond, nor was there proof that his conduct caused or materially contributed to the cerebral palsy suffered by the respondent's child. Expert evidence presented by the respondent was found to be speculative, lacking in direct causal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced with dismissal of the claim against the appellant with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced with: 'The Plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant is dismissed with costs.'