Vetnuus | August 2025 27 Vet Ordered to Compensate Yorkie Owner for ‘Emotional Trauma’ By Isabel Venter: Maroela Media (maroelamedia.co.za) The High Court has ordered a veterinary practice in Pretoria to compensate the owner of a Yorkie for the emotional distress he suffered after the dog was severely injured during an operation. Judge Aubrey Ledwaba delivered his ruling last Friday. Maroela Media previously reported on the owner of Triesie turning to the High Court to claim damages from the Pierre van Ryneveld Veterinary Practice. According to Triesie’s owners, she is a purebred dog and was supposed to be entered into dog shows, but this could not happen due to the failed operation. Riaan Nortjé, Triesie’s owner, welcomed Ledwaba’s ruling, saying he had fulfilled his promise to fight for Triesie’s rights. In his sworn statement, Nortjé explained that he took her to the practice on 27 February 2019 for a cruciate ligament injury. She was operated on the following day. According to Nortjé, the vet told him that Triesie had been placed on a wrapped hot water bottle after being sedated for the ligament repair. The hot water bottle allegedly caused burns on her left side, which later became septic. The practice, in its affidavits (also obtained by Maroela Media), denied this version of events. The practice pointed out in its statement to the court that, according to clinical notes, Triesie was only brought back two weeks after the surgery, on 14 March, due to experiencing pain. They argued that it would have been impossible for Triesie to have sustained the injuries during the operation, as she would have shown discomfort within two days if the burns had occurred during the procedure. The practice also stated that a follow-up took place on 3 March – shortly after the operation – and again telephonically on 8 March to check in on Triesie. “No discomfort was reported at the time. Triesie’s stitches were removed on 11 March, and no mention of pain was made then either,” the statement read. They added that the fact they treated Triesie free of charge afterwards should not be seen as an admission of guilt. They did so purely because she was in severe pain and they wanted to help her recover. Nortjé testified before Judge Ledwaba that he contacted the practice the day after the surgery because Triesie began to hyperventilate while sitting on his lap. This call, however, was not recorded in Triesie’s clinical notes, and the vet argued it should therefore not be admissible in court. Ledwaba disagreed and found that just because Nortjé’s version was not supported by the notes, it did not mean it held no weight. He thus concluded that Nortjé had succeeded in proving that Triesie’s injuries were caused by her right side resting on a hot water bottle during surgery. “Nortjé testified with tears in his eyes about how the surgery and wounds emotionally drained him. I do not believe he was pretending. The practice did not dispute his claim that Triesie was like a child to him.” In addition to the emotional trauma, Nortjé claimed he suffered significant financial loss due to the income he could have earned from Triesie as a show dog. According to the details of his claim, Nortjé sought damages totalling R400,263.35 from the practice, including the R4,955.86 surgery bill, additional expenses for Triesie’s treatment, R100,000 for the income lost over the next three years, and R200,000 for the emotional trauma and shock experienced by both himself and his dog. Ledwaba awarded only the claims for emotional trauma and Triesie’s additional treatment. He found that there was insufficient evidence to support the other claims. “It is unclear to what extent Triesie was disfigured and how exactly this contributed to the loss of income and sponsorships,” the judgment read. Nortjé’s claim for the surgery costs was also dismissed. According to Ledwaba, the practice provided a service that required medication to be administered, and therefore, they were entitled to payment. No cost order was made. Dr. Ampie Viljoen, who has run the Pierre van Ryneveld practice for more than 30 years, said the full judgment would be reviewed thoroughly before a final decision is made on whether to appeal. “In all my years, this is the first claim against us, and the Veterinary Council didn’t even make a finding of negligence. Yet we were taken straight to court. We always act in the best interest of the animals brought to us for treatment,”Viljoen said. v
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTc5MDU=