In October 2025, the Appeal Court decided that the MEC for Health, North West was not liable for the alleged injuries and consequent damages suffered by a claimant following the insertion of a faulty intravenous drip in his arm at a public hospital.
The claimant alleged that while receiving treatment at the hospital, the medical staff attempted to insert an intravenous drip in his right arm when a portion of the drip mechanism broke off. This caused him injury and resulted in the loss of function in his arm, which impacted his ability to work as a boilermaker. The claimant argued that by inserting a faulty drip into his arm, the medical staff failed to provide medical care and treatment with such professional skill, care, and diligence as could reasonably be expected from such medical staff in the circumstances.
The MEC argued that the medical staff were unaware that the drip was faulty at the time of insertion. It was not the intention of the medical staff to utilise a faulty intravenous drip. The MEC submitted that proper medical care was given to the claimant, and the medical staff were not negligent.
The court found that although it was common cause that the intravenous drip used was faulty, the claimant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the medical staff were negligent or that the faulty drip caused the harm complained of. The court reiterated that, in medical negligence claims, the mere occurrence of an adverse event does not automatically imply negligence. A claimant bears the burden of proving negligence and causation through credible evidence.
This judgment is a reminder that claimants should not simply rely on the principle that the facts speak for themselves (res ipsa loquitur) in medical negligence claims. Just because something goes wrong during a medical procedure or treatment does not automatically imply that there is blameworthy conduct on the part of the medical staff. A claimant must present clear evidence in proving the delictual elements of fault and causation.