Analyzing the case concerning causation
Tort law provides remedies to persons harmed by the actions of authorities or others. Ideally, tort claims are part of the state laws. Therefore, individuals are held responsible for their actions in case it causes injury to others. Tort law deals with cases such as the case concerning Mr. Dudley Lee, who contracted tuberculosis (TB) when in was in detention. Notably, the plaintiff got infected with TB while in jail because the authorities failed to take precautionary and preventive measures against communicable diseases (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 10). The probable cause that made the applicant contract TB is the negligence of the prison authorities. High judges found it difficult to determine the causation of the TB since the applicant tested negative to regular sputum tests that were done during his incarceration. Notably, Mr. Lee realized that he had TB three years later after his incarceration. In short, the case revolves around the issue of factual causation and not legal causation.
The High Court ruled the case for the applicant. The High Court stated that the authority’s negligence caused the TB infection among the inmates. Prison authorities were aware that the inmates were at risk of contracting TB. During plaintiff’s incarceration the authorities failed to isolate the infected inmates, this increased TB infections within the prison. Ideally, Mr. Lee has constitutional support, and the detained individuals should be handled with dignity (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 28). The ‘but-for’ test is utilized in investigating the factual causation of the case; the postulated cause is termed as causa sine of the question. The test seeks to clarify whether the omissions or wrongful acts are done by the authorities made the plaintiff contract tuberculosis. Notably, the test determines whether the loss suffered by the defendant can be attributed to the negligence of the prison authorities. The present case is uncomplicated since the supervening causes emanate from the misconduct of the authorities. Therefore, the but-for test is appropriate for identifying the factual causation of the case.
In the application of but-for test one has to eliminate the issue of the unlawful act of the plaintiff and concentrate on the circumstances or events that caused harm to the defendant. Ideally, the plaintiff’s unlawful conduct is not the cause of the harm he suffers. However, the existing law requires a flexible rule that can utilize the substitution of lawful conduct for the unlawful act in the determination of factual causation using but-for test (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 34). Consequently, the factual causation is responsible for TB outbreak in pollsmoor prison during the incarceration period of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is justified that the negligence of the prison authorities caused the defendant to contract TB. The tort law provides compensation for the plaintiff, and also, the prison authorities should be judged for their negligence.
Analyzing the case concerning unlimited liability of the state
In the determination of the fate of the present case, the court's decision concerns imposing unlimited liability of the state on the plaintiff without considering his conduct. Ideally, the tort law provides a criterion for defining the boundaries of unlimited liability in determining cases such as that of Mr. Dudley. The unlimited liability of the state is based on both policy and social considerations; therefore, it does not contaminate the factual causation of the case. Delictual liability makes it possible to distinguish between an omission and a positive act (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 40). Ideally, the respondent who was the minister in charge of correctional services in Pollsmoor prison during the incarceration period of Mr. Dudley enjoys unlimited liability of the state irrespective of the fact he failed to provide adequate health services to prisoners as required by the constitution. The constitution states that the dignity of all inmates should be respected by the authorities. In essence, the prisoners have rights to conducive conditions that are in line with human dignity. Therefore, the law requires the plaintiff to provide specific scientific evidence before imposing liability for the injury to the plaintiff.
The prisoners are part of the vulnerable individuals in the society, and the state has failed to meet the statutory as well as their constitutional obligations of the inmates. The unlimited liability of the state has contributed to the violation the rights of inmates by the correctional authorities. The humane and civilized society requires that the correctional authorities have to assume its obligation in respecting the rights of the inmates. The legal duty should have protected Mr. Lee and other inmates from contracting communicable diseases (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 48). Notably, the constitution demands adequate nutrition, medical treatment and accommodation for the inmates. The Supreme Court accepted that the correctional authorities at Pollsmoor prison failed to take reasonable measures such as subjecting the inmates to proper screening for airborne illnesses such as TB while in prison because they enjoyed unlimited liability of the state. The prisoners required regular chest examinations that could facilitate the isolation of suspected TB inmates from the others thus curbing the spread of the disease. Furthermore, the screening allowed the provision of sufficient nutrition to the undernourished inmates who were vulnerable to contracting TB. The Pollsmoor prison correctional authorities failed to provide effective and regular screening of the prison population because they enjoy unlimited liability of the state. Ideally, Mr. Lee’s case requires legal liability since the causal agent of the TB exists; therefore, the correctional authorities must be held liable for the harm experienced by the defendant.
In a nutshell, the defendant suffered because of the negligence of the correctional authorities. The tort law outlines the reasonable connection of the harm done to the defendant and the ways of compensating him despite the unlimited liability of the state enjoyed by the authorities. Notably, the High Court stated that the authorities were responsible for the harm inflicted on the defendant. TB infection limits liability since the severe consequences of authority’s negligence (Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 52). Delictual liability is required to enhance the authorities’ efficiency and accountability. The authorities should respect the rule of law despite the unlimited liability of the state they enjoy.
Work Cited
Lee v Minister for Correctional Services. 1-65. (CCT 20/12) [2012] ZACC 30; 2013 (2) BCLR 129 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC); 2013 (1) SACR 213 (CC). 11 Dec. 2012. Print.
