South Africa Case Law

Van Tonder N.O v Road Accident Fund (4032/2013)

Van Tonder N.O v Road Accident Fund (4032/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 382 (30 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4032/2013

Judge

Maumela

The court found that the Plaintiff sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, but the degree of brain injury and existence of a skull fracture were not sufficiently proven due to the absence of timely and reliable expert reports and radiological evidence. The hospital records indicated a mild brain injury, and the expert reports relied upon by the Plaintiff were stale and could not be given full weight. In determining general damages, the court considered comparable awards in similar cases and exercised its discretion to award an amount that reflects the proven injuries and sequelae. T…

Source excerpt

• General Damages
• Assessment Of Injuries
• Expert Evidence
• Compensation For Personal Injury
• Costs Award

P.H obo S.H v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (11198/2016)

P.H obo S.H v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (11198/2016) [2020] ZAKZDHC 38; 2021 (1) SA 530 (KZD) (31 August 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11198/2016

Judge

Mngadi

The court granted a Rule 34A interim payment for medical expenses and an advance payment, but refused the State’s bid to amend the plea to raise a public healthcare defence.

• Interim Payment
• Public Healthcare Defence
• Amendment Of Plea
• Development Of Common Law
• Compensation For Personal Injury
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Erasmus v MEC for Health: Northern Cape Government and Another (1342/2014)

Erasmus v MEC for Health: Northern Cape Government and Another (1342/2014) [2017] ZANCHC 66 (13 September 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1342/2014

Judge

Mamosebo

The court found that the hospital staff failed to act with the requisite degree of care and skill by not amputating the plaintiff's gangrenous toe within the medically advised 48-hour period. Expert evidence established that the plaintiff suffered from wet gangrene, which required urgent intervention, and that the delay in amputation directly led to the spread of infection and the necessity for above-knee amputation. The defendant's reliance on a diagnosis of dry gangrene was rejected as inconsistent with the clinical evidence and expert testimony. The court held that the defendant's omission…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• Hospital Liability
• Causation
• Expert Evidence
• Quantum Separation
• Compensation For Personal Injury