W.A.P.M and Another v Minister of Defence (44009/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 612 (9 February 2018)

W.A.P.M and Another v Minister of Defence (44009/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 612 (9 February 2018)

The court found that the defendant's medical staff failed to obtain proper informed consent from the second plaintiff, as not all consent forms were signed and there was no credible evidence that the risks were adequately explained. The operation was performed in the wrong anatomical area, resulting in severe injury to the bile duct and arterial system. The procedure was conducted by a trainee under supervision, but the level of skill required was not met, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the error. The court rejected the defendant's expert evidence as biased and unreliable. The injury was foreseeable and avoidable, and the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 612
Parties
Plaintiff: W A P M; Plaintiff: M M; Defendant: Minister of Defence
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2018
Case Number
44009/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The defendant is liable for all the second plaintiff's proven damages.
Judges
Thobane
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Vicarious Liability, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Damages Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Family and Children Medical Negligence Informed Consent Vicarious Liability Standard of Care Expert Evidence +1 more

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

Parties

W A P M

Plaintiff

M M

Plaintiff

Minister of Defence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's medical staff were negligent in performing the gallbladder removal surgery on the second plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether informed consent was properly obtained from the second plaintiff prior to the procedure.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its medical staff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's medical staff failed to obtain proper informed consent from the second plaintiff, as not all consent forms were signed and there was no credible evidence that the risks were adequately explained. The operation was performed in the wrong anatomical area, resulting in severe injury to the bile duct and arterial system. The procedure was conducted by a trainee under supervision, but the level of skill required was not met, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the error. The court rejected the defendant's expert evidence as biased and unreliable. The injury was foreseeable and avoidable, and the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent...

Court Disposition

The defendant is liable for all the second plaintiff's proven damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for all the second plaintiff's proven damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the second plaintiff's costs together with the qualifying costs of Dr Pienaar.