The appellant owned a private hospital in Pretoria. The respondent was admitted for surgery and post-operative treatment. Upon admission he signed a standard admission document containing clause 2.2, an exemption clause releasing the hospital and its staff from liability for all harm or loss arising directly or indirectly from injury or illness, excluding only intentional wrongdoing. After surgery, complications arose allegedly because a nurse negligently applied a bandage too tightly, impairing blood circulation and causing serious damage. The respondent sued the hospital in contract for damages exceeding R2 million, alleging breach of a tacit term that nursing staff would treat him professionally and with reasonable care. The hospital relied on clause 2.2 to exclude liability. The High Court held the clause unenforceable. The hospital appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order declaring clause 2.2 enforceable against the respondent, with costs.
This is a leading authority on the enforceability of exemption clauses in private hospital contracts. It affirms pacta sunt servanda and contractual autonomy in South African law, clarifies the limited role of public policy and good faith in invalidating contracts, and explains how constitutional values inform but do not automatically override established common-law principles. The judgment is also important for its detailed exposition of stare decisis and the development of the common law under section 39(2) of the Constitution.