W v Deist (2013/15818) [2018] ZAGPJHC 582 (11 October 2018)

W v Deist (2013/15818) [2018] ZAGPJHC 582 (11 October 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff was adequately informed about the procedure, its risks, and alternatives, both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to read and understand the consent form and was not pressurised into signing it. Expert evidence confirmed that the surgery was performed correctly and in accordance with the standard of care expected of a specialist ophthalmic surgeon. The plaintiff's post-operative conditions, including presbyopia and vitreous floaters, were not caused by negligence but were age-related or known risks of the procedure. The plaintiff's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory, and his claim that he was not informed or...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 582
Parties
Plaintiff: A W; Defendant: Mark Brendan Deist
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
2013/15818
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability and Causation Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability and Causation
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim on the separated issues of liability and causation is dismissed.
Judges
MAKUME
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Contractual Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Informed Consent Standard of Care Contractual Liability

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A W

Plaintiff

Mark Brendan Deist

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability and Causation Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in performing the laser eye surgery on the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to exercise the requisite duty of care during the procedure.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff gave valid informed consent to the procedure performed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was adequately informed about the procedure, its risks, and alternatives, both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to read and understand the consent form and was not pressurised into signing it. Expert evidence confirmed that the surgery was performed correctly and in accordance with the standard of care expected of a specialist ophthalmic surgeon. The plaintiff's post-operative conditions, including presbyopia and vitreous floaters, were not caused by negligence but were age-related or known risks of the procedure. The plaintiff's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory, and his claim that he was not informed or...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim on the separated issues of liability and causation is dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim as pleaded in paragraphs 1 to 8, 9, 9.1 and 9.2 of the particulars of claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's taxed costs on a party and party scale.