Minister of Police v Skosana

Minister of Police v Skosana[1] is an important case in and died shortly after leaving the theatre.
South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Divi-
sion on 19 March 1976, with judgment handed down on
27 September. The judges were Wessels JA, Jansen JA, 2 Principles
Corbett JA, Kotz JA and Viljoen AJA.
The case is especially important in the law of delict, deal- Causation in the law of delict gives rise to two distinct
ing with the problems relating to causation and the con- problems. The rst is a factual one, relating to the ques-
ditio sine qua non or but-for test. Where there was a tion of whether or not the negligent act or omission in
negligent delay in furnishing medical aid and treatment to question caused or materially contributed to the harm
the deceased, whose widow established, on a balance of which gave rise to the claim. If it did not, no legal lia-
probabilities, that he would not have died but for such bility can arise and cadit quaestio; if it did, the second
delay, the court held that she was entitled to damages. problem becomes relevant: whether the negligent act or
omission is linked to the harm suciently closely or di-
rectly for legal liability to ensue, or whether, as it is said,
the harm is too remote.
1 Facts
This is basically a juridical problem in which consider-
ations of legal policy may play a part. The test, other-
In the Transvaal Provincial Division, Skosana had suc- wise known as that of causa (conditio) sine qua non, is
cessfully claimed damages on behalf of herself and her whether or not, but for the negligent act or omission of
minor children resulting from the death of her husband, the defendant, the event giving rise to the harm would
T, in the following circumstances. T, whilst heavily un- have occurred. Generally speaking, the Appellate Divi-
der the inuence of intoxicating liquor, had driven his sion found, no act or condition or omission may be re-
motor car o the road and landed in a ditch, as a result garded as a cause in fact unless it passes this test.
whereof he, together with Skosana and two other pas-
sengers, had been injured. The passengers had been re-
moved in an ambulance, but T had been removed in a
police van to the charge oce and from there to the con- 3 Judgment
sulting rooms of the district surgeon, who had performed
a clinical examination and taken a blood sample. At that The court a quo (TPD) held that the constables con-
stage, T had only complained of a pain in the chest. cerned, acting within the course of their duty and within
Although he had been examined thoroughly, no sign of the score of their employment, had been negligent
internal injury could be detected.
When the cells were opened next morning, at 7.45 am, in not immediately summoning the district surgeon;
he complained of quite a severe pain over the abdomen and
and requested to be taken to a doctor. At 9.45 am, he
walked with the constable to the district surgeons consult- in not causing him to be taken to hospital immedi-
ing rooms where he was immediately examined. The dis- ately thereafter.
trict surgeon wrote a note for the hospital and instructed
the constable to arrange for his being taken there. There The court awarded damages in an agreed amount.
was a further delay of two hours before the ambulance In an appeal, it was accepted that the prime cause of death
arrived. was the occurrence in which T sustained his bowel in-
At the hospital, T was found to be in a very serious jury, which in turn resulted in peritonitis. The Appel-
condition. An attempt was made to resuscitate him for late Division held that Skosana, the respondent, had es-
operation, but his condition remained poor. When it was tablished negligent delay in furnishing the deceased with
found impossible to resuscitate him further, a laparotomy medical aid and treatment in the aforesaid respects, and
was performed. The viscus was found to be ruptured held further that the respondent had established, as a mat-
with severe generalised peritonitis. The ruptured small ter of probability, that the deceased would have survived
bowel was sutured and a drain inserted. Although he had if the operation had been performed nearly ve hours ear-
only been lightly anaesthetized, he failed to wake up lier, as it would have been, regard being had to a shorter

1
2 6 NOTES

period of resuscitation being necessary, but for the neg-

ligence of the constables. (Jansen JA and Viljoen AJA
dissented here.) The decision in the Transvaal Provincial
Division, in Skosana v Minister of Police, was thus con-
rmed.

4 See also
Delict

Law of South Africa

South African law of delict

5 References

5.1 Case law

Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A).

6 Notes
[1] 1977 (1) SA 31 (A).
 3

7 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

7.1 Text
Minister of Police v Skosana Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Police_v_Skosana?oldid=783430220 Contributors:
Htonl, Dl2000, Robertson-Glasgow, Good Olfactory, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 1

7.2 Images

7.3 Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0