Badenhorst v Liberty Group Properties (Edms) Beperk (A1/06) [2007] ZAFSHC 111 (7 June 2007)

Badenhorst v Liberty Group Properties (Edms) Beperk (A1/06) [2007] ZAFSHC 111 (7 June 2007)

The court found that the respondent, as owner of the shopping centre, owed a legal duty to prevent injury to members of the public from dangerous conditions. The evidence established that the black glossy tiles used in the public walkways were extremely slippery and created a real danger to visitors, as confirmed by expert and lay witnesses. The appellant's testimony that she slipped and fell due to the tiles was credible and not contradicted by direct evidence. The respondent failed to take reasonable precautions, such as installing warning signs, despite the foreseeable risk. The court held that the respondent was negligent and that the appellant's injury was caused by the dangerous...

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 111
Parties
Appellant: S J Badenhorst; Respondent: Liberty Group Properties (Edms) Beperk
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2007
Case Number
A1/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment Refusing Damages; Appeal Heard by Full Bench
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; respondent found liable for damages to be proven.
Judges
C.H.G. van der Merwe, J.P. Malherbe, M.H. Rampai
Legal Topics
Premises Liability, Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence
Delict Land and Property Premises Liability Negligence Causation Duty of Care Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S J Badenhorst

Appellant

Liberty Group Properties (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment Refusing Damages; Appeal Heard by Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent owed a legal duty to prevent injury to members of the public due to the condition of the shopping centre's floor tiles.
  2. 2 Whether the use of glossy black tiles created a dangerous condition for the public.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's injury was caused by the dangerous condition of the tiles.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, as owner of the shopping centre, owed a legal duty to prevent injury to members of the public from dangerous conditions. The evidence established that the black glossy tiles used in the public walkways were extremely slippery and created a real danger to visitors, as confirmed by expert and lay witnesses. The appellant's testimony that she slipped and fell due to the tiles was credible and not contradicted by direct evidence. The respondent failed to take reasonable precautions, such as installing warning signs, despite the foreseeable risk. The court held that the respondent was negligent and that the appellant's injury was caused by the dangerous...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; respondent found liable for damages to be proven.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The trial court's orders are set aside and replaced with: (a) The respondent is found liable to compensate the appellant for such damages as she may prove she suffered as a result of her fall in the respondent's shopping centre on 29 May 2000; (b) The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the trial.