Cape Metropolitan Council v Graham (157/99) [2000] ZASCA 93; [2001] 1 All SA 215 (A); 2001 (1) SA 1197 (SCA) (27 November 2000)

Cape Metropolitan Council v Graham (157/99) [2000] ZASCA 93; [2001] 1 All SA 215 (A); 2001 (1) SA 1197 (SCA) (27 November 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, as the local authority responsible for Chapman’s Peak Drive, was negligent in failing to close the road prior to the landslide that injured the respondent. The Court found that the risk of major slope failure and harm to road users had increased significantly due to sustained heavy rainfall, and this was known or ought to have been known to the appellant. The warning signs were no longer adequate to convey the true extent of the risk, and the appellant failed to appoint a suitably qualified person to assess the risk and make closure decisions based on available information such as rainfall data and the history of slope failures. The...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 93
Parties
Appellant: Cape Metropolitan Council; Respondent: Noel Raymond Graham
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2000
Case Number
157/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on Liability for Delictual Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; appellant held liable for damages suffered by respondent.
Judges
Scott, Howie, Olivier, Zulman, Farlam
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability of Local Authorities, Road Safety, Slope Failure, Personal Injury
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Liability of Local Authorities Road Safety Slope Failure +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Metropolitan Council

Appellant

Noel Raymond Graham

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on Liability for Delictual Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as the local authority responsible for Chapman’s Peak Drive, was negligent in failing to close the road prior to the landslide that injured the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the warning signs provided by the appellant were adequate to warn road users of the risk of landslides and falling rocks.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant’s failure to appoint a suitably qualified person to assess risk and close the road amounted to negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, as the local authority responsible for Chapman’s Peak Drive, was negligent in failing to close the road prior to the landslide that injured the respondent. The Court found that the risk of major slope failure and harm to road users had increased significantly due to sustained heavy rainfall, and this was known or ought to have been known to the appellant. The warning signs were no longer adequate to convey the true extent of the risk, and the appellant failed to appoint a suitably qualified person to assess the risk and make closure decisions based on available information such as rainfall data and the history of slope failures. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; appellant held liable for damages suffered by respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is liable for the damages suffered by the respondent as a consequence of the accident.