Bashman v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (1057/2020) [2022] ZAECQBHC 33 (27 September 2022)

Bashman v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (1057/2020) [2022] ZAECQBHC 33 (27 September 2022)

The court found that the defendant, as a municipality, owed a legal duty of care to members of the public, including the plaintiff, to ensure that storm water drains were covered and that hazards were adequately signposted. The evidence established that the storm water drain was left uncovered for a considerable period, with no warning signs or streetlights, and that municipal employees were aware of the situation. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, thereby acting wrongfully and negligently. However, the plaintiff contributed to her own injury by choosing to walk on the roadway instead of the pavement and failing to keep a proper lookout, which...

Citation
[2022] ZAECQBHC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: Nosisi Bashman; Defendant: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2022
Case Number
1057/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Judgment on Negligence and Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant held liable for 90% of proven damages; plaintiff awarded costs.
Judges
Gqamana
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Municipal Liability, Personal Injury, Storm Water Drain Hazard
Delict Civil Procedure Land and Property Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Municipal Liability Personal Injury +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nosisi Bashman

Plaintiff

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Judgment on Negligence and Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff regarding the uncovered storm water drain.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to cover the storm water drain or warn the public.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed to her own injury by her conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, as a municipality, owed a legal duty of care to members of the public, including the plaintiff, to ensure that storm water drains were covered and that hazards were adequately signposted. The evidence established that the storm water drain was left uncovered for a considerable period, with no warning signs or streetlights, and that municipal employees were aware of the situation. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, thereby acting wrongfully and negligently. However, the plaintiff contributed to her own injury by choosing to walk on the roadway instead of the pavement and failing to keep a proper lookout, which...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for 90% of proven damages; plaintiff awarded costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable for 90% of such damages that the plaintiff may prove arising from the incident that occurred on 24 July 2019.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs.