| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Truter v Deysel ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Truter v Deysel
''Truter and Another v Deysel''〔2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA).〕〔Case No. 043/2005.〕 is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent.〔The plaintiff's attorneys were MacRobert Inc, Cape Town, and Claude Reid Inc, Bloemfontein. The respondents' attorneys were Millers Inc, Cape Town, and Rosendorff Reitz Barry, Bloemfontein.〕 The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.
The case turned on "the crisp question"〔Para 12.〕 of when exactly, in terms of the Prescription Act,〔Act 68 of 1969.〕 the period of prescription commences. Deysel's claim was based on delict. Under section 12 of the Act, prescription begins to run only from the time at which creditor acquires knowledge, or is deemed to have acquired knowledge, of "the facts from which the debt arises." The creditor acquires a complete cause of action for the recovery of debt when he is in possession of the entire set of facts upon which he relies to prove his claim. The court held that the cause of action is complete as soon as the creditor sustains some harm; knowledge of fault or unlawfulness is not required. Expert opinion (to the effect that the defendants' conduct was negligent) did not constitute a fact, but was rather evidence. Prescription accordingly commenced to run as soon as the creditor sustained harm, and not only when he secured expert opinion that defendants' conduct was negligent.
== Facts ==
The respondent (plaintiff ''a quo'') instituted action in the High Court against the appellants (defendants ''a quo'') for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by him as a result of the negligence of the defendants in their performance on him of certain medical and surgical procedures. The defendants raised a special plea of prescription. It appeared that, although the procedures had been performed on the plaintiff in 1993, it was only in early 2000 that he managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had conducted themselves negligently and, for that reason, that summons was issued only in April 2000. The question which fell for determination by the High Court was the time at which the period of prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claim had commenced to run. The High Court dismissed the special plea, finding that the period of prescription had commenced running only when the plaintiff had managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had been negligent.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Truter v Deysel」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|