Assessment: Safety - Carpet Cleaner (201702-0011917) [2017] ZACGSO 6 (4 April 2017)

Assessment: Safety - Carpet Cleaner (201702-0011917) [2017] ZACGSO 6 (4 April 2017)

The Ombud found that, on a balance of probabilities, the contamination of the product did not occur while the product was in the possession or control of the supplier. The evidence showed no other complaints from the same batch, no rodent infestation at the place of manufacture or storage, and the packaging exhibited signs of rodent gnawing likely occurring after sale. The complainant failed to prove that the product defect existed at the time of supply or that her illness was caused by the product. Furthermore, she did not provide evidence substantiating her claim for R30,000.00 in damages. As a result, the supplier cannot be held liable under Section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act,...

Citation
[2017] ZACGSO 6
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Case Number
201702-0011917
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
The complaint is dismissed. No recommendation is made in favour of the complainant.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Product Liability, Causation, Quantification of Damages
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Product Liability Causation Quantification of Damages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplier is liable for harm suffered by the complainant due to alleged contamination of the product.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant proved a causal link between the product defect and the illness suffered.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation of R30,000.00.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that, on a balance of probabilities, the contamination of the product did not occur while the product was in the possession or control of the supplier. The evidence showed no other complaints from the same batch, no rodent infestation at the place of manufacture or storage, and the packaging exhibited signs of rodent gnawing likely occurring after sale. The complainant failed to prove that the product defect existed at the time of supply or that her illness was caused by the product. Furthermore, she did not provide evidence substantiating her claim for R30,000.00 in damages. As a result, the supplier cannot be held liable under Section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act,...

Court Disposition

The complaint is dismissed. No recommendation is made in favour of the complainant.

Orders

  • No compensation is awarded to the complainant.
  • The supplier is not held liable for the alleged harm.