Case Summary: Pinchin and Another NO v Santam Insurance Co Ltd


Welcome to the My Easy LLB Namibian Law Blog!

This case featured a dispute surrounding a woman whose baby was born with brain damage after a car accident she was involved in while she was pregnant. The case summary attempts to follow the basic FIRAC rubric and includes as much pertinent information as possible. It is, however, not a substitute for self-study. We're only trying to help. Good luck! 😉✌ (Tip: Use the sidebar to browse other case summaries on this subject)

Facts

  • A pregnant woman was involved in a car accident caused by the defendant’s negligence;
  • After birth, the child was found to be suffering from serious brain damage;
  • Compensation was claimed from the defendant on the child’s behalf; however, at the time of the defendant’s acts, the child was in ventre matris (had no legal personality and no legally protected interests that could be infringed).

Issues

One: Does a person have an action in respect of injury inflicted on him while he was still a foetus in his mother's womb?

Two: Is the foetus a ‘person’ for the purposes of sec. 11 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 29 of 1942?

Three: Does the nasciturus fiction apply outside the law of property and include the law of delict?

Rules

Aquinas: 'right presupposes that in the first place man should be there. Before you can have a right, you must be';

Grotius: 'a child in the womb is regarded as born if it is to its advantage, and not when it would be to its disadvantage';

Legislation: Sec. 11 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 29 of 1942 re compensation for damage suffered by a ‘person’

Roman Law - An unborn child, if subsequently born alive, will acquire all of the rights of a born child, whenever this is to his or her advantage (Nasciturus fiction)

International precedent - Montreal Tramways Co v Léveillé, (1933) 4 D.L.R. 337 (Canada); Walker v G.T.N. Railway Co. of Ireland, (1891) 28 L.R. (Ir.) 69 (Ireland)

Texts – Mckerron: Law of Delict, 5th ed.; Marthinus Versfeld: Acta Juridica.

Analysis

In its consideration of the passages from Aquinas, Grotius and the like, the court stated that these passages are not of general application and are not always decisive because they usually refer to the law of succession and answer questions of status, as opposed to questions related to the law of delict. However, it was made clear that the nasciturus fiction is clearly part of our law and that, therefore, there was no need to consider the point of whether or not a foetus counts as a ‘person’ or not for the purposes of sec. 11 of the MVA.

Though the nasciturus fiction was stated and acknowledged, the court reasoned that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary to apply the nasciturus fiction because the wrongful act and its consequences were separate in both time and space. The defendant’s act (at the time of the accident) resulted in a harmful consequence much later (when the child was born with injuries). The legal subject came into being at birth and only then did the act bring about a harmful consequence. Therefore, the child need not have had legal capacity at the time of the act.

Hiemstra J went on to state that there is no viable reason why a foetus should be treated as a person for the sake of property but not for the sake of ‘life and limb’ (at p259):

I see no reason for limiting the fiction in this way, and the old authorities did not expressly limit it. It is probably because the state of medical knowledge at the time did not make it possible to prove a causal link between pre-natal injury and a post-natal condition, that it did not occur to them to deal with this situation. Would there be an action in the case of dolus? It seems impossible to deny it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff was unable to prove her case on a balance of probabilities due to insufficient medical evidence.

Holding

It was held that a child has an action to recover damages for pre-natal injuries.

It was held further that the nasciturus fiction includes the law of delict.

For aforementioned reasons, the court ordered absolution from the instance.🍎

Popular posts from this blog

Case Summary: Borland’s Trustee v Steel Bros & Co Ltd

Case Note: Chisholm v East Rand Proprietary Mines Ltd