Camilleri v Old Mutual Investment Group Investments (Pty) Ltd (16484/2007) [2011] ZAWCHC 465 (13 December 2011)

Camilleri v Old Mutual Investment Group Investments (Pty) Ltd (16484/2007) [2011] ZAWCHC 465 (13 December 2011)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, what caused her to slip and fall. Her evidence was based on assumptions and speculation, unsupported by direct observation or corroboration. The defendant's evidence established that proper safety systems were in place, the safety railing was present, and no hazardous substance or defect was found during inspections. The plaintiff did not produce credible evidence of any negligent omission or hazardous condition attributable to the defendant. Accordingly, the claim must fail as the plaintiff did not prove negligence or causation.

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 465
Parties
Plaintiff: Christine Camilleri; Defendant: Old Mutual Investment Group Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Case Number
16484/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
J I Cloete
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier Liability, Burden of Proof, Slip and Fall
Delict Land and Property Negligence Occupier Liability Burden of Proof Slip and Fall

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Camilleri

Plaintiff

Old Mutual Investment Group Investments (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant breach its duty of care to the plaintiff as occupier of the premises?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff prove on a balance of probabilities what caused her to slip and fall?
  3. 3 Was there a hazardous substance or defect on the premises that caused the plaintiff's injuries?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, what caused her to slip and fall. Her evidence was based on assumptions and speculation, unsupported by direct observation or corroboration. The defendant's evidence established that proper safety systems were in place, the safety railing was present, and no hazardous substance or defect was found during inspections. The plaintiff did not produce credible evidence of any negligent omission or hazardous condition attributable to the defendant. Accordingly, the claim must fail as the plaintiff did not prove negligence or causation.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff's case.