Reyneke v Touyz (168/92) [1994] ZASCA 42 (28 March 1994)

Reyneke v Touyz (168/92) [1994] ZASCA 42 (28 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to establish, on a preponderance of probability, that the appellant was responsible for the dural tear and nerve injury. The evidence revealed significant improbabilities in the respondent's version, particularly regarding the occurrence and reporting of a spinal headache, the absence of acute pain at the time of the alleged injury, and the technical likelihood of the injury being caused by the appellant's procedure. The court held that the operation findings of a dural tear and nerve injury could not be conclusively attributed to the appellant, given the complex factual matrix and alternative possible causes. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: Andre Josias Reyneke; Respondent: Rhian Merry Touyz
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1994
Case Number
168/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Hefer, Nestadt, Kannemeyer, Mahomed
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Onus of Proof, Expert Evidence, Causation, Absolution From Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Onus of Proof Expert Evidence Causation Absolution From Instance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Josias Reyneke

Appellant

Rhian Merry Touyz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant anaesthetist was negligent in administering an epidural anaesthetic resulting in injury to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellant caused a dural tear and nerve injury.
  3. 3 Whether the occurrence of a spinal headache was established and communicated to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to establish, on a preponderance of probability, that the appellant was responsible for the dural tear and nerve injury. The evidence revealed significant improbabilities in the respondent's version, particularly regarding the occurrence and reporting of a spinal headache, the absence of acute pain at the time of the alleged injury, and the technical likelihood of the injury being caused by the appellant's procedure. The court held that the operation findings of a dural tear and nerve injury could not be conclusively attributed to the appellant, given the complex factual matrix and alternative possible causes. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an order for absolution from the instance with costs, including the costs of two counsel.