Medical Negligence Claims
Medical negligence means that a medical practitioner has failed to exercise the degree of skill and care that is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in that particular branch of the profession. This means that the more complicated the procedure – the greater the degree of skill and care required.
An error in diagnosis is not necessarily negligence, the test is whether a reasonable practitioner in the same branch of medical practice would have made a similar error. Further to this, whether a reasonably competent practitioner in their position would have foreseen the likelihood of harm and taken steps to guard against it. This means that there is no legal liability for unforeseeable complications. The test for negligence is highlighted in Kruger v Coetzee, namely whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would not only have foreseen the harm but would also have acted to avert it.
To break it down: – “For the purposes of liability culpa arises if –
1. A reasonable person in the position of the defendant:
(i) Would have foreseen harm of the general kind that actually occurred;
(ii) Would have foreseen the general kind of causal sequence by which that harm occurred;
(iii) Would have taken steps to guard against it, and
2. The defendant failed to take those steps.”
In proving medical negligence, expert opinions need to be obtained as the courts will rely on these opinions as evidence to make a decision in a matter.
The courts in South Africa do not accept “res ipsa loquitur” or the “facts speak for themselves” doctrine in medical cases.
Quick Links
Medical Negligence Claims
An error in diagnosis is not necessarily negligence, the test is whether a reasonable practitioner in the same branch of medical practice would have made a similar error. Further to this, whether a reasonably competent practitioner in their position would have foreseen the likelihood of harm and taken steps to guard against it. This means that there is no legal liability for unforeseeable complications. The test for negligence is highlighted in Kruger v Coetzee, namely whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would not only have foreseen the harm but would also have acted to avert it.
To break it down: – “For the purposes of liability culpa arises if –
1. A reasonable person in the position of the defendant:
(i) Would have foreseen harm of the general kind that actually occurred;
(ii) Would have foreseen the general kind of causal sequence by which that harm occurred;
(iii) Would have taken steps to guard against it, and
2. The defendant failed to take those steps.”
In proving medical negligence, expert opinions need to be obtained as the courts will rely on these opinions as evidence to make a decision in a matter.
The courts in South Africa do not accept “res ipsa loquitur” or the “facts speak for themselves” doctrine in medical cases.