Mkhitha v Road Accident Fund and Another (1783/2012) [2015] ZAECMHC 71 (1 October 2015)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea Determination

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether Section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act precludes the plaintiff from suing the Second Defendant for damages arising from substandard medical treatment after a collision.
2. 2 Whether the sequelae resulting from negligent medical intervention constitute a novus actus interveniens breaking the causal chain for liability against the Fund.
3. 3 Whether the plaintiff retains a common law and constitutional right of recourse against joint wrongdoers unconnected with the driving of the insured vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act does not preclude the plaintiff from suing the Second Defendant for damages arising from substandard medical treatment following a collision. The sequelae resulting from negligent medical intervention constitute a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation and rendering the Fund not liable for these remote consequences. The plaintiff retains her common law and constitutional right of recourse against joint wrongdoers, such as the Second Defendant, for damages arising from medical negligence. The Special Plea raised by the Second Defendant was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Special Plea dismissed with costs against the Second Defendant.

Orders

• The Second Defendant's Special Plea is dismissed.
• The Second Defendant is directed to pay the costs, including costs of two counsels for the plaintiff, in respect of the Special Plea.