Minister of Safety and Security and others v Loraine Craig

On 19 July 2003, Andre Craig, heavily intoxicated, drove into oncoming traffic on the N3 freeway, causing a collision that killed two children. Craig was arrested and taken to Dr Thompson, a district surgeon, for a blood-alcohol test at approximately 23h50. Dr Thompson examined Craig, noted minor injuries and shoulder pain, but recorded him as "well". Craig was then taken to Hammarsdale police station where his family requested bail (denied) and medical attention. Paramedics were called but Craig allegedly refused examination. Craig was transferred to Mpumalanga police station holding cells at 03h45 the next morning. At 10h35, Craig complained of feeling unwell and was taken to Grey's hospital where he died at 13h45 from a delayed rupture of the descending aorta caused by the collision. Craig's wife sued the Minister of Safety and Security, the Station Commander, and Inspector Mwandla for damages, alleging negligence in failing to provide adequate medical care while Craig was in police custody.

• Whether the police owed a duty of care to ensure the well-being of an arrested person in their custody
• Whether the police breached their duty of care by failing to ensure immediate medical attention and hospitalization for the deceased
• Whether Dr Thompson issued instructions to police to transport the deceased to hospital and whether such instructions were ignored
• Whether the police were negligent in the totality of circumstances given the information available to them about the deceased's condition
• Whether the factual findings by the trial court, particularly regarding credibility of witnesses, were supported by the evidence

The appeal was upheld with costs (including costs of two counsel). The High Court's order finding the appellants liable was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with costs.

Police officers responsible for arrested persons have a duty to ensure their well-being and to obtain necessary medical assistance where it appears detainees are in distress, injured or ill. However, negligence must be assessed according to the Kruger v Coetzee test: whether a reasonable person in the position of the police would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of injury and would have taken reasonable steps to guard against it, and whether the police failed to take such steps. In determining what is reasonable, courts must consider the totality of circumstances including: the information available to police at the time; observations of the detainee's condition; any medical assessments already conducted; the detainee's apparent physical state and complaints; and the responses when medical assistance is offered. Police are not liable where they act reasonably on the basis of a medical assessment showing no serious concerns, the detainee shows no obvious signs of distress, makes no complaints, and refuses examination when paramedics are summoned, even if a latent condition later proves fatal.

The Court noted with sympathy the plight of the deceased's wife and daughters who lost their breadwinner and appeared to be without means, but emphasized that good police officers who execute their duties conscientiously under trying circumstances are entitled to have their reputations kept intact and should not be saddled with liability unjustifiably. The Court also observed that a delayed rupture of the descending aorta, while well-known, is not a frequent occurrence following high-impact collisions, and that most such ruptures are immediately lethal. The Court noted that contained ruptures have specific clinical indicators (high or low blood pressure, pressure differentials between limbs, rib fractures particularly of ribs 1-3) best detected by x-rays, and that the deceased's high level of intoxication could have masked pain that would normally attend such an injury. The Court also commented that Dr Thompson appeared to have been derelict in his duty by not arranging for immediate summoning of an ambulance if he genuinely believed hospitalization was necessary.

This case clarifies the standard of care owed by police to persons in their custody and the test for negligence in such circumstances. It establishes that while police have a duty to ensure the well-being of detainees (reaffirming Mtati v Minister of Justice 1958 (1) SA 221 (A)), liability only arises where they fail to take reasonable steps that a reasonable person in their position would take based on the information available to them at the time. The case also demonstrates appellate court's greater latitude to review factual findings and credibility assessments where these are based on inferences, probabilities and documentary evidence rather than demeanor, and where the trial court's reasoning is demonstrably flawed or not supported by the record. It protects conscientious police officers from liability where they act reasonably in difficult circumstances with limited medical information.