Preller Plein Apteek v B.H (A50/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 71 (26 March 2020)

Preller Plein Apteek v B.H (A50/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 71 (26 March 2020)

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the appellant's employee negligently administered the injection in the sacral area, contrary to accepted medical protocol. Expert testimony, particularly from Dr. Edeling, demonstrated that the respondent's acute symptoms and subsequent injuries were causally linked to the injection. The trial court correctly found that the employee's limited training contributed to the negligent conduct. The appellant's arguments regarding causation and the admissibility of EEG reports were rejected, as the electronic evidence was admissible under statute and the expert evidence was logically sound. The causal link between the injection and...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 71
Parties
Appellant: Preller Plein Apteek; Respondent: B H
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
A50/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge; Merits Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Musi, Loubser, Ramlal
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Expert Evidence, Electronic Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Causation Expert Evidence Electronic 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Preller Plein Apteek

Appellant

B H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge; Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's employee negligently administered an injection to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the injection caused the respondent's injuries, including epileptic seizure and disk prolapse.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence, including expert testimony and electronic EEG reports, established causation on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the appellant's employee negligently administered the injection in the sacral area, contrary to accepted medical protocol. Expert testimony, particularly from Dr. Edeling, demonstrated that the respondent's acute symptoms and subsequent injuries were causally linked to the injection. The trial court correctly found that the employee's limited training contributed to the negligent conduct. The appellant's arguments regarding causation and the admissibility of EEG reports were rejected, as the electronic evidence was admissible under statute and the expert evidence was logically sound. The causal link between the injection and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.