Dutton - Medical Malpractice in SA

6
Fault
INTRODUCTION 1
6.1 Definition of fault
The element of fault is an essential general requirement for delictual liability.
2 Underlying the requirement of fault is the notion that it is not enough for
unlawful conduct to cause harm — a person should only be held legally accountable
for his or her conduct if it was, in some sense, blameworthy. 3 For legal liability
to result, the law therefore also requires that the wrongdoer either intended
to cause the harm, or that his or her conduct was negligent. The fault element
has been described as the legal ‘imputability’ of the actor’s conduct to him, i e
whether the law should hold the actor accountable for his conduct, 4 or as the
legal ‘blameworthiness’ of a person’s state of mind or conduct.
6.2 The concept of fault
There are a number of challenging jurisprudential questions as to the true nature
of fault, and predictably divergent views. 5 These differences seldom affect litiga-
1
See, generally: Collins v Administrator, Cape 1995 (4) SA 73 (C); Pringle v Administrator, Transvaal
1990 (2) SA 379 (W); Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A); Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO
1993 (4) SA 842 (A); C v Minister of Correctional Services 1996 (4) SA 292 (T); S v Hartmann 1975
(3) SA 532 (C); Esterhuizen v Administrator Transvaal 1957 (3) SA 710 (T); Van Wyk v Lewis 1924
AD 438; Buls v Tsatsarolakis 1976 (2) SA 891 (T); Dale v Hamilton 1924 WLD 184; Michael v
Linksfield Park Clinic 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA); S v Mkwetshana 1965 (2) SA 493 (N); Premier of
KZN v Sonny 2011 (3) SA 424 (SCA); Broude v McIntosh 1998 (3) SA 60 (SCA); Prowse v Kaplan
1933 EDL 257; Mitchell v Dixon 1914 AD 519; Coppen v Impey 1916 CPD 309; Buthelezi v Ndaba
2013 (5) SA 437 (SCA) ; Eskom Holdings v Hendricks 2005 (5) SA 503 (SCA); Country Cloud
Trading CC v MEC of Infrastructure Development 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC); Loureiro v Imvula Quality
Protection (Pty) Limited 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC).
2
The fault element is not always a requirement, however: see para 6.5 below regarding strict
(‘no-fault’) liability.
3
See e g Burchell Principles of Delict (Juta 1993) at 10 and 30–32; Neethling et al Law of Delict
6 ed (LexisNexis 2010) at 123–124; Boberg The Law of Delict vol 1 Aquilian Liability 2 imp (Juta
1984) at 268–274. See Neethling et al ibid for a summary of the divergent views on the true
nature of fault (esp at 123 fn 2).
S v Ngubane 1985 (3) SA 677 (A). For the general essential elements of delict, see para 3.6 above.
4
Boberg The Law of Delict vol 1 Aquilian Liability 2 imp (Juta 1984) at 268–274.
5
See Neethling et al ibid for a summary of the divergent views on the true nature of fault (esp
at 123 fn 2). For example, the question arises whether the actor must, in addition to directing
his or her will at causing a particular result, at least foresee the possibility that the conduct is
wrongful. Questions also arise as to whether fault amounts to ‘an unlawful mental condition
79