S v Maitin (311/2013) [2014] ZASCA 156; 2014 (6) SA 533 (SCA) (1 October 2014)

S v Maitin (311/2013) [2014] ZASCA 156; 2014 (6) SA 533 (SCA) (1 October 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mrs S[...] failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of Dr Maitin. The estimation of the baby's weight was not negligent, as medical evidence confirmed that such estimations are inherently imprecise, especially with large babies. The management of labour, including the decision not to perform a Caesarean section, was consistent with accepted medical practice and did not deviate from the standard of care. Shoulder dystocia is not reliably predictable, and the risks observed during labour did not warrant a change in course. The modified McRoberts' manoeuvre was justified under the circumstances and did not amount to negligence. The...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 156
Parties
Appellant: Mrs N[...] S[...] S[...] NO; Respondent: Dr D P Maitin
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2014
Case Number
311/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lewis, Ponnan, Pillay, Dambuza, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Aquilian Action, Onus of Proof, Wrongfulness, Standard of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Informed Consent Aquilian Action Onus of Proof Wrongfulness Standard of Care

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs N[...] S[...] S[...] NO

Appellant

Dr D P Maitin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Dr Maitin act negligently in the estimation of the baby's weight and management of Mrs S[...]'s labour?
  2. 2 Was the injury to the baby caused by negligent conduct during delivery, specifically in the use of the McRoberts' manoeuvre?
  3. 3 Should the common law be developed to require disclosure of remote risks to patients for informed consent?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mrs S[...] failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of Dr Maitin. The estimation of the baby's weight was not negligent, as medical evidence confirmed that such estimations are inherently imprecise, especially with large babies. The management of labour, including the decision not to perform a Caesarean section, was consistent with accepted medical practice and did not deviate from the standard of care. Shoulder dystocia is not reliably predictable, and the risks observed during labour did not warrant a change in course. The modified McRoberts' manoeuvre was justified under the circumstances and did not amount to negligence. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.