Mulder v Dr. Kuhn (41405/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1219 (22 September 2023)

Mulder v Dr. Kuhn (41405/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1219 (22 September 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff and his wife were honest but their evidence was unreliable due to memory lapses and mutual influence in reconstructing events. The defendant's version was supported by contemporaneous clinical notes and corroborated by his nurse. The expert evidence did not conclusively establish that an infection was present during the relevant period or that any alleged negligence caused the amputation. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on both negligence and causation. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1219
Parties
Plaintiff: Andries Hermanus Mulder; Defendant: Dr. A.W.D. Kuhn
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Case Number
41405/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence
Delict Medical Negligence Causation Standard of Care 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Hermanus Mulder

Plaintiff

Dr. A.W.D. Kuhn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat a post-operative infection in the plaintiff's knee between 30 May and 6 June 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's alleged negligence was causally connected to the eventual amputation of the plaintiff's right leg.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof regarding both negligence and causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and his wife were honest but their evidence was unreliable due to memory lapses and mutual influence in reconstructing events. The defendant's version was supported by contemporaneous clinical notes and corroborated by his nurse. The expert evidence did not conclusively establish that an infection was present during the relevant period or that any alleged negligence caused the amputation. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on both negligence and causation. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.