Dutton - Medical Malpractice in SA

128
Medical Malpractice in South African Law
7. In breach of his legal duty, the defendant negligently failed to take one or
more of the following reasonable steps to guard against the plaintiff suffering
further injury:
7.1 the defendant failed to recommend that the plaintiff immediately be
transferred to a hospital; 6
7.2 the defendant failed to set a date for a follow-up consultation after the
fracture had been set; 7
7.3 the defendant failed to monitor the plaintiff’s condition with the necessary
vigilance 8 and/or
7.4 the defendant failed to give the plaintiff proper instructions to be followed
post-operatively while convalescing, such instructions consisting
of:
7.4.1 explaining to the plaintiff in clear and unambiguous terms what
was required of him and giving the plaintiff sufficient warning as
was necessary in the circumstances; 9
7.4.2 advising the plaintiff of any specific danger and the possibility of
its occurring; and/or 10
7.4.3 advising the plaintiff of the proper action to be taken should such
eventuality occur. 11
8. As a result of the defendant’s negligence the plaintiff [set out the nature of the
injuries suffered and the calculation of the amount claimed in terms of Rule 18(10)
of the Uniform Rules of Court].
9. In the premises the defendant is liable to pay the sum of [quantum] to the
plaintiff.
10. Notwithstanding written demand delivered to the defendant on [details], the
defendant has failed to pay the sum claimed to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE [etcetera …]
6
Webb v Isaac 1915 ECD 273.
7
Ibid.
8
Blyth v van den Heever 1980 (1) SA 191 (A) at 222.
9
Lord Nathan’s Medical Jurisprudence 9 (pp 46 et. Seq.) Cited in Premier of KZN v Sonny 2011
(3) SA 424 (SCA) at 431 and Dube v Administrator, Transvaal 1963 (4) SA 260 (W) at 268E–H.
10
Premier, KZN v Sonny 2011 (3) SA 424 (SCA).
11
Premier, KZN v Sonny 2011 (3) SA 424 (SCA).