Dutton - Medical Malpractice in SA

4
Unlawfulness (Wrongfulness) 1
4.1 Introduction 2
30
The first principle of the law of delict, so often overlooked, is that everyone
must bear the loss which they suffer. 3 The Afrikaans aphorism is ‘die skade rus
waar dit val.’ 4 The various forms of delictual actions provide an exception to the
rule and, in order to be liable for the loss of someone else, the conduct 5 which
1
On the whole, the term ‘unlawfulness’ is preferred to ‘wrongfulness’. ‘Wrongfulness’, in
common usage, may refer to moral, as well as legal, reprehensibility — a meaning which is
firmly rejected by our courts — see e g Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 (1) SA
389 (SCA) at 395–396 — and goes to the heart of the purpose of the concept as a control
measure demarcating the limits of delictual liability. Nonetheless, the use of ‘wrongfulness’
is firmly entrenched in our law and so, for reasons of pragmatism, the words ‘unlawfulness’
and ‘wrongfulness’ are used synonymously (as our Courts have done — see, e g Thirion J in
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D) (at 650); Harms JA in Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix
Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) at [13]; Viv’s Tippers
(Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Security 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA) at [5]).
2
See, generally: Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority
SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA); Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431
(SCA); Edouard v Administrator, Natal 1989 (2) SA 368 (D); McIntosh v Premier, KwaZulu-Natal
2008 (6) SA 1 (SCA); Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A); Friedman v Glicksman 1996
(1) SA 1134 (W); Stewart and Another v Botha and Another 2008 (6) SA 310 (SCA); Road Accident
Fund v Mtati 2005 (6) SA 215 (SCA); Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA);
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D); Hawekwa Youth Camp and Another v Byrne 2010 (6) SA 83
(SCA); Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry v Rieck 2007 (2) SA 118 (SCA); Viv’s Tippers
(Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA);
Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC Department of Infrastructure and Development 2014 (2) SA 214
(SCA); Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Afrika (Bpk) 1979 (3) SA 824 (A); Fourway Haulage
SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Limited 2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA); Le Roux v Dey (Freedom
of Expression Institute and Authorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) at 122;
Dantex Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Brenner and Others NNO 1989 (1) SA 390 (A); Geary and
Son (Pty) Ltd v Gove 1964 (1) SA 434 (A); Gouda Boerdery Bk v Transnet 2005 (5) SA 490 (SCA);
Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Limited 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC). There has
been something of an avalanche of writing on unlawfulness in recent years, both academic
and judicial. An extensive list of references is contained in Andrew Paizes, ‘Making sense of
wrongfulness’, 2008 SALJ 371 at 412 fn 1.
3
As observed by Harms JA in Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising
Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) at 468: ‘The first principle of the law of delict,
which is so easily forgotten and hardly appears in any local text on the subject, is, as the
Dutch author Asser points out, that everyone has to bear the loss he or she suffers’; C Asser
Handleiding tot die Beoefening van die Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht: Verbentenissenrecht 9 ed (1994)
part III at 12.
4
‘The loss lies where it falls.’
5
By way of positive act or omission (see paras 4.13–4.14 below).