Watkin-Jones v Diest (2013/1518) [2018] ZAGPPHC 825 (11 October 2018)

Watkin-Jones v Diest (2013/1518) [2018] ZAGPPHC 825 (11 October 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff was fully informed of the nature, risks, and alternatives of the laser eye surgery, both verbally and in writing, and had ample opportunity to read and understand the consent form prior to signing. The evidence showed that the defendant performed the procedure in accordance with the standard of a reasonable specialist ophthalmic surgeon, with no negligence or breach of duty established. Expert witnesses for both parties agreed that the technical aspects of the surgery were correctly executed, that the plaintiff's post-operative conditions were either age-related or known risks, and that outcomes cannot be guaranteed. The plaintiff's claim that he was...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 825
Parties
Plaintiff: Adrian Gustav Watkin-Jones; Defendant: Mark Brendan Deist
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
2013/1518
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
M A Makume
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Contractual Liability, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Informed Consent Standard of Care Contractual Liability Expert 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Gustav Watkin-Jones

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 breached his duty of care towards the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff gave valid informed consent to the procedure performed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was fully informed of the nature, risks, and alternatives of the laser eye surgery, both verbally and in writing, and had ample opportunity to read and understand the consent form prior to signing. The evidence showed that the defendant performed the procedure in accordance with the standard of a reasonable specialist ophthalmic surgeon, with no negligence or breach of duty established. Expert witnesses for both parties agreed that the technical aspects of the surgery were correctly executed, that the plaintiff's post-operative conditions were either age-related or known risks, and that outcomes cannot be guaranteed. The plaintiff's claim that he was...

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.