Supreme Court rules against general damages for unconscious claimant in cerebral palsy case
A landmark ruling was made by a court regarding general damages to be paid by the health authorities as compensation for an “unconscious claimant”, the Supreme Court of Appeal maintained that such a claimant was not entitled to any award for pain and suffering.
Image: Julio César Velásquez Mejía/Pixabay
In a landmark ruling that could set a significant precedent in South African law, the Supreme Court of Appeal has determined that a child born with cerebral palsy is not entitled to general damages for pain and suffering, due to the condition of being “unconscious.”
This ruling stems from a case involving a mother who sought compensation on behalf of her child, following a severe brain injury attributed to the negligence of medical practitioners at a Gauteng hospital.
The court awarded R2.2 million in general damages to the child initially, and an additional R13.3 million for special damages, aimed at securing necessary aids and devices to improve the child’s quality of life.
However, the Gauteng MEC contested the award for general damages, arguing that as the child is in a vegetative state, the additional damages served no purpose.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, articulated by Judge Tati Makgoka, stated that “an award for loss of amenities of life can only be made to the extent it can serve some function for the personal and exclusive benefit of the claimant.”
The ruling pointed out that the special damages already awarded were sufficient to meet the development and care needs of the child, making further compensation redundant.
Judge Makgoka emphasised that without evidence demonstrating how any additional awards could serve the child’s exclusive benefit, the court found no justification for granting further damages.
“The serving of additional amounts in the form of general damages to the unconscious child would serve no purpose other than benefiting the child’s mother,” he concluded.
However, the case was not without controversy. The minority opinion, led by Judge Anna Kgoele, contended that the child was not entirely devoid of consciousness, possessing what they termed “twilight moments” of awareness.
They argued that even if the child were indeed in a vegetative state, it wouldn’t equate them to a deceased individual, thus preserving their right to claim general damages.
Kgoele articulated a belief that such an award could aid relatives, suggesting that the R2.2 million for general damages should be recognised as valid and reasonable.
The depth of this ruling signifies potential ramifications not just for similar future cases, but also for the broader interpretation of damages in South Africa.
The judges' opposing views bring to light profound questions regarding the treatment of unconscious claimants within the legal system, setting the stage for ongoing debates about the intersection of medical realities and legal entitlements.
DAILY NEWS