Is a Juristic Person Vicariously Liable for Maintenance of a Child? A Judicial Analysis

The inquiry of this study is to explore whether a juristic person such as the Ministry of Health or a hospital is vicarious liable for the actions of its servants. This research purports that professionally skilled employees such as medical practitioners, surgeons, specialist obstetricians and gynaecologists are regarded as servants of the juristic person. The fact that the medical professionals are integrated into the organisational structures of a hospital and are subject to administrative directions suffices to make them “servants.” So when these servants commit a delict or wrongful conduct against patients in the course and scope of their employment, the Ministry of Health or the hospital will be found to be vicariously liable. As far as they act as organs of the juristic person (hospital), the employing institution is vicariously liable for its servants’ delictual actions. In the Mildred-case the appellant after being rape, requested a doctor to give her medication to prevent pregnancy. She was sent from pillar to post till the unwanted child was born. The questions this research raises are whether the juristic person (hospital) was negligent in the manner in which they dealt with the appellant’s predicament. If this question is to be answered in the affirmative, then the hospital is liable to the appellant in damages for pain and suffering and for the maintenance of her child. The study will canvasses the issue of the vicarious liability of juristic persons for maintenance of children by invoking similar situated case law and draw a resolution from these court cases. These case law entail: Administrator, Natal v Edouard, Mukheiber v Raath, Steward and Another v Botha and Another, Sonny and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Another and Friedman v Glickman. The approach to other legal systems remains of relevance and could assist us in developing our own domestic laws further.