Bursey v GVK Siyazama Building Contractors EP (Pty) Ltd (2661/2008) [2010] ZAECGHC 117 (2 December 2010)

Bursey v GVK Siyazama Building Contractors EP (Pty) Ltd (2661/2008) [2010] ZAECGHC 117 (2 December 2010)

The court found the plaintiff and his witness to be credible and accepted their evidence that the defendant's workmen used and left aluminium extension ladders on site, including in the boardroom. The defendant's witnesses were less credible and their denials were contradicted by the probabilities and direct evidence. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to users of the boardroom and that its employee acted negligently by leaving the ladder in a hazardous position. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as he had no reason to expect a ladder on the floor and was entitled to rely on the safety of the premises. The defendant was found liable for damages resulting...

Citation
[2010] ZAECGHC 117
Parties
Plaintiff: Graham John Bursey; Defendant: GVK Siyazama Building Contractors EP (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2010
Case Number
2661/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Defendant found liable for damages; plea of contributory negligence dismissed; quantum postponed.
Judges
J.D. Pickering
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Occupier Liability, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Occupier Liability 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham John Bursey

Plaintiff

GVK Siyazama Building Contractors EP (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owned or used the aluminium extension ladder over which the plaintiff tripped.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a user of the boardroom.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's employee acted negligently in leaving the ladder on the floor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff and his witness to be credible and accepted their evidence that the defendant's workmen used and left aluminium extension ladders on site, including in the boardroom. The defendant's witnesses were less credible and their denials were contradicted by the probabilities and direct evidence. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to users of the boardroom and that its employee acted negligently by leaving the ladder in a hazardous position. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as he had no reason to expect a ladder on the floor and was entitled to rely on the safety of the premises. The defendant was found liable for damages resulting...

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for damages; plea of contributory negligence dismissed; quantum postponed.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for such damages as he is able to prove in consequence of having fallen over the ladder in the boardroom of the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 25 April 2006.
  • The defendant’s plea of contributory negligence is dismissed.