Checkers Supermarket v Lindsay (123/08) [2009] ZASCA 26; 2009 (4) SA 459 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 487 (SCA) (27 March 2009)

Checkers Supermarket v Lindsay (123/08) [2009] ZASCA 26; 2009 (4) SA 459 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 487 (SCA) (27 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's cleaning system was inadequate given the size of the supermarket, the number of aisles, and the known risk of spillages in certain sections. The evidence showed that after 2 pm only one cleaner was responsible for the entire floor, and no cleaner attended the scene of the respondent's fall. The court found that the appellant failed to implement a system capable of discovering and responding to hazardous spillages with reasonable promptitude. This failure constituted negligence, and the respondent's injury was a direct result of that negligence. The findings of the High Court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 26
Parties
Appellant: Checkers Supermarket; Respondent: Esme Lindsay
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Case Number
123/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Liability Only; Quantum Stayed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court's finding of negligence upheld.
Judges
Navsa, Brand, Mlambo
Legal Topics
Negligence, Premises Liability, Duty of Care, Adequacy of Cleaning System
Delict Negligence Premises Liability Duty of Care Adequacy of Cleaning System

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

Parties

Checkers Supermarket

Appellant

Esme Lindsay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Liability Only; Quantum Stayed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonably adequate and efficient system to discover and remove dangerous spillages on the supermarket floor.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's fall was caused by the appellant's negligence in failing to prevent or promptly address hazardous spillages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's cleaning system was inadequate given the size of the supermarket, the number of aisles, and the known risk of spillages in certain sections. The evidence showed that after 2 pm only one cleaner was responsible for the entire floor, and no cleaner attended the scene of the respondent's fall. The court found that the appellant failed to implement a system capable of discovering and responding to hazardous spillages with reasonable promptitude. This failure constituted negligence, and the respondent's injury was a direct result of that negligence. The findings of the High Court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court's finding of negligence upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.