Ascani v Vincent Family Pharmacy CC (EL1830/2011, ECD3564/11) [2013] ZAECELLC 1 (22 January 2013)

Ascani v Vincent Family Pharmacy CC (EL1830/2011, ECD3564/11) [2013] ZAECELLC 1 (22 January 2013)

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and consistent with the probabilities, particularly regarding the dampness of the floor and the absence of adequate warning signage. The defendant's witnesses were found to be unreliable and their evidence inconsistent, especially concerning the cleaning procedures and the timing of the removal of warning signs. The court held that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of injury from a recently washed floor and failed to take reasonable steps to warn customers, such as leaving the warning sign at the entrance until the floor was dry or using additional signage. The defendant's cleaning methods were inconsistent and...

Citation
[2013] ZAECELLC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaret Louise Ascani; Defendant: Vincent Family Pharmacy CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Case Number
EL1830/2011, ECD3564/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only
Outcome
The defendant is held liable for such damages as the plaintiff will prove to have suffered as a result of the injury sustained at the pharmacy.
Judges
N Dambuza
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier Liability, Slip and Fall, Duty of Care
Delict Land and Property Negligence Occupier Liability Slip and Fall Duty of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Louise Ascani

Plaintiff

Vincent Family Pharmacy CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to warn customers of a wet or damp floor.
  2. 2 Whether the condition of the floor caused the plaintiff's fall and resultant injuries.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's cleaning procedures and warning signage were adequate to discharge its duty of care.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and consistent with the probabilities, particularly regarding the dampness of the floor and the absence of adequate warning signage. The defendant's witnesses were found to be unreliable and their evidence inconsistent, especially concerning the cleaning procedures and the timing of the removal of warning signs. The court held that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of injury from a recently washed floor and failed to take reasonable steps to warn customers, such as leaving the warning sign at the entrance until the floor was dry or using additional signage. The defendant's cleaning methods were inconsistent and...

Court Disposition

The defendant is held liable for such damages as the plaintiff will prove to have suffered as a result of the injury sustained at the pharmacy.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable for the plaintiff's damages resulting from the fall on 17 May 2011.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit.