This blog was co-authored by Thabo Kolele, candidate attorney at Deneys.
In a May 2024 judgment, the High Court ruled that the defendant did not breach their legal duty to the claimant, whose foot was amputated due to localized sepsis.
On 5 June 2015, the claimant was accidentally stabbed near the back of his ankle by a co-worker with a hay-loading fork. The fork was used to spear fish in a dam while the claimant’s feet were submerged in the water. Afterward, the claimant got out of the water, washed the area where he had been stabbed, and saw no visible wound. Later that night, the claimant woke up to find swelling in the left foot, and that the foot was no longer functional.
The claimant was then taken to the private practice of Dr. J.N. Nel in Kroonstad. It is undisputed that Dr. Stander, who attended to the claimant, diagnosed the injury as a fracture. Thereafter, the claimant was referred to Bloemfontein Hospital and admitted to the casualty unit. Dr. Stander did not mention any open wound or stabbing incident in his referral to the hospital.
At the hospital, Dr. Thejane attended to the claimant, diagnosed a left ankle fracture, and ordered x-rays. Dr. Thejane did not detect a fracture on the x-rays and discharged the claimant that evening. The claimant was given care instructions and told to return the next Thursday. However, he did not follow the wound care instructions. The claimant experienced increased pain on the injured foot and returned to Dr. Nel’s practice. Dr. Nel treated him, unaware of the infection due to the claimant’s failure to disclose it.
Several medical practitioners attended to the claimant from both Dr. Nel’s private practice and Bloemfontein Hospital. However, it is unclear why none could identify the infection if the claimant had alerted them to the stabbing. The injury was so small it was not visible to the naked eye. None of the medical reports indicate that the claimant informed the practitioners of the hay fork stabbing. The stabbing incident was not corroborated by any form of evidence, as the co-worker also did not testify about the incident. The amputation was due to localized sepsis, which was determined to be potentially fatal if not amputated.
Since the claimant’s claim was based on delict, he had to link the swelling and subsequent amputation to the practitioners’ negligence. The community’s legal convictions demand that hospitals and healthcare practitioners provide adequate services to the public. They also demand that those who fail to do so must be held liable. The question is whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would foresee the possibility of their conduct causing harm and take steps to prevent it. The defendant failed to take such steps.
According to the claimant’s expert, if the wound was not visible, the attending doctor could not have known of the claimant’s injury and the surrounding circumstances. It was not reasonable to expect the doctor to be vigilant about infection without disclosure from the claimant. Since the doctor’s treatment depended on the claimant disclosing the details of the injury, the claimant failed to establish the defendant’s liability for damages. The claimant’s case was dismissed on the merits with costs.