Barnard v Peregrine Plaza (Pty) Ltd (14475/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 48 (18 February 2025)

Barnard v Peregrine Plaza (Pty) Ltd (14475/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 48 (18 February 2025)

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to patrons and that the open-air deck was foreseeably hazardous due to winter morning dew. The defendant failed to inspect, dry, or warn patrons about the slippery surface, constituting negligence. The plaintiff credibly established that the deck was wet and slippery, and the presence of crates increased the risk. The defendant's omission was wrongful and causally linked to the plaintiff's fall. There was no evidence of contributory negligence; the plaintiff walked slowly and was entitled to focus on displayed goods. The defendant's failure to call a material witness warranted an adverse inference. The defendant is 100% liable for the...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 48
Parties
Plaintiff: Amanda Barnard; Defendant: Peregrine Plaza (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Case Number
14475/20
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim on the merits succeeds; defendant is liable for 100% of proven damages.
Judges
A Montzinger
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Slip and Fall, Duty of Care, Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Personal Injury Slip and Fall Duty of Care Negligence Causation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Barnard

Plaintiff

Peregrine Plaza (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care regarding the safety of the walkway?
  2. 2 Was the defendant negligent in failing to inspect, dry, or warn patrons about the wet and slippery deck?
  3. 3 Did the defendant's omission cause the plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to patrons and that the open-air deck was foreseeably hazardous due to winter morning dew. The defendant failed to inspect, dry, or warn patrons about the slippery surface, constituting negligence. The plaintiff credibly established that the deck was wet and slippery, and the presence of crates increased the risk. The defendant's omission was wrongful and causally linked to the plaintiff's fall. There was no evidence of contributory negligence; the plaintiff walked slowly and was entitled to focus on displayed goods. The defendant's failure to call a material witness warranted an adverse inference. The defendant is 100% liable for the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim on the merits succeeds; defendant is liable for 100% of proven damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the damages which the plaintiff may prove to have arisen from her fall on 27 July 2019.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit, including counsel's fees on scale B.