Both v Post Office Cafe Bazaar CC (39502/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 73 (11 November 2009)

Both v Post Office Cafe Bazaar CC (39502/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 73 (11 November 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff tripped and fell due to an obstacle on the supermarket floor, which should not have been present. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff tripped but denied the existence of a protruding tile. The court accepted the plaintiff's and her witness's evidence as credible and reliable, noting corroboration regarding the protruding tile. The defendant's witness failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the loss of CCTV footage and inconsistencies in his statements. The court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an obstacle for which the defendant was liable. Applying the test in Kruger v Coetzee, the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPJHC 73
Parties
Plaintiff: Cornelia Both; Defendant: Post Office Cafe Bazaar CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2009
Case Number
39502/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendant is liable for 100 percent of proven damages.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier Liability, Personal Injury, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Land and Property Negligence Occupier Liability Personal Injury Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Cornelia Both

Plaintiff

Post Office Cafe Bazaar CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of her tripping and falling at the defendant's supermarket.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by a defect or obstacle on the premises for which the defendant is responsible.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence establishes negligence on the part of the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff tripped and fell due to an obstacle on the supermarket floor, which should not have been present. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff tripped but denied the existence of a protruding tile. The court accepted the plaintiff's and her witness's evidence as credible and reliable, noting corroboration regarding the protruding tile. The defendant's witness failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the loss of CCTV footage and inconsistencies in his statements. The court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an obstacle for which the defendant was liable. Applying the test in Kruger v Coetzee, the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendant is liable for 100 percent of proven damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff 100 percent of her proven damages arising from the accident which occurred at the defendant's premises on 2 October 2006.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial on the merits, limited to one day only of the trial proceedings before this court.