In Steyl and Another v Motheo TVET College and Others (3368/2020) ZAFSHC 41, the Free State High Court held that a technical and vocational education and training (TVET) college and two of its lecturers breached their duty of care. The court found that they failed to take steps to ensure the safety of a mechanical engineering student who died from injuries sustained after a motor vehicle caught fire during a practical training session. The incident occurred on 30 October 2017, when the student sustained severe third-degree burns to 48% of his body. He was taken to the hospital, where he then received emergency treatment in the trauma unit. He was then transferred to the intensive care unit, where he passed away on 11 November 2017. The cause of death was septicaemia. His mother and twin brother subsequently brought a delictual damages claim against the defendants.
During the trial, witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that:
- no safety training was provided to students;
- students were given tools but not instructed on how to use them;
- most fire extinguishers were not in good working order; and
- students were not required to wear their full protective clothing.
At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants unsuccessfully applied for absolution from the instance and closed their case without tendering any evidence. They denied negligence and any breach of a legal duty owed to the deceased and pleaded that they had taken specified reasonable steps. However, they failed to prove any of these steps when called upon to discover documents relevant to their pleaded case.
The defendants further argued that the deceased underwent two major surgeries requiring extreme measures to prevent bacterial contamination and that the measures adopted were insufficient, allowing bacteria to establish and resulted in septicaemia. The defendants, therefore, argued that novus actus interveniens had been proven. The Court rejected this argument and held that 10 to 14% of the deceased's burns were inhalation burns. Once a burn wound reaches the third layer of skin, it is considered a deep dermal burn and classified as a third-degree burn. Such burn injuries affect all organs and trigger an inflammatory response, which can lead to septicaemia, fatal complication in 80% of patients. This was a foreseeable complication of the primary injury.
The defendants argued that post-surgical septicaemia broke the causal chain. The Court rejected this, holding that a foreseeable complication of the primary injury cannot constitute a novus actus interveniens. The Court found that the defendants had breached their duty of care and that the injuries sustained were the direct cause of the deceased's death. The first, third, and fourth defendants were held 100% liable for any proven damages and the costs of suit, with quantum to be determined separately.
This judgment is a clear reminder that foreseeable medical complications do not break the chain of causation and that defendants cannot escape liability where the primary injury sets in motion the fatal outcome.
