Markham v Member of Executive Council: Health and Social Development (Gauteng Provincial Government) (26645/2013) [2016] ZAGPJHC 313 (18 November 2016)

Markham v Member of Executive Council: Health and Social Development (Gauteng Provincial Government) (26645/2013) [2016] ZAGPJHC 313 (18 November 2016)

The court found that the defendant's staff were negligent in failing to perform double volume exchange transfusions for the minor, as they did not ensure that the necessary quantity of blood was available, either by using fresh blood or supplementing with old blood from the hospital's blood bank. The evidence of the plaintiff's expert, Prof Smith, was accepted as prevailing since the defendant's expert did not clearly refute the possibility of mixing old and fresh blood in emergency circumstances. The subsidiary issue of liability for the National Blood Transfusion Service was found to be irrelevant to the determination of negligence in this context. Accordingly, there was no reasonable...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 313
Parties
Plaintiff: Markham, Christina Petronella (obo Markham, Lesedi Arnold); Defendant: Member of Executive Council: Health and Social Development (Gauteng Provincial Government)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Case Number
26645/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
WHG van der Linde
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Leave to Appeal, Hospital Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Leave to Appeal Hospital Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Markham, Christina Petronella (obo Markham, Lesedi Arnold)

Plaintiff

Member of Executive Council: Health and Social Development (Gauteng Provincial Government)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's staff were negligent in failing to perform double volume exchange transfusions for the minor.
  2. 2 Whether mixing old blood with fresh blood was permissible and required in the emergency circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was liable for the failure of the National Blood Transfusion Service to provide sufficient fresh blood.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's staff were negligent in failing to perform double volume exchange transfusions for the minor, as they did not ensure that the necessary quantity of blood was available, either by using fresh blood or supplementing with old blood from the hospital's blood bank. The evidence of the plaintiff's expert, Prof Smith, was accepted as prevailing since the defendant's expert did not clearly refute the possibility of mixing old and fresh blood in emergency circumstances. The subsidiary issue of liability for the National Blood Transfusion Service was found to be irrelevant to the determination of negligence in this context. Accordingly, there was no reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.