Ferreira and Another v Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (13/17950) [2019] ZAGPJHC 146 (12 April 2019)

Ferreira and Another v Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (13/17950) [2019] ZAGPJHC 146 (12 April 2019)

The court found that the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the Defendant or the Third Party. The cleaning system in place was adequate, with overlapping shifts during peak hours and trained staff to report and address hazards. The only evidence of the spill came from the First Plaintiff, and no other witness observed any liquid on the floor. The disclaimer defense was rejected due to insufficient evidence of its visibility to the Plaintiff. The court concluded that it would have been impossible to prevent the fall if the spill occurred mere seconds before or during the incident. Accordingly, the Defendant and Third Party were not liable for the Plaintiff's injuries.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 146
Parties
Plaintiff: Leigh Glenys Ferreira; Plaintiff: Mario De Sousa; Defendant: Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd; Third Party: Double Quick Cleaning CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Case Number
13/17950
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Merits Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
R Hertenberger
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier Liability, Contracted Cleaning Services, Disclaimer of Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Occupier Liability Contracted Cleaning Services Disclaimer of Liability

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leigh Glenys Ferreira

Plaintiff

Mario De Sousa

Plaintiff

Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Double Quick Cleaning CC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Merits Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant and/or Third Party were negligent in failing to prevent the Plaintiff's fall.
  2. 2 Whether the disclaimer displayed by the Defendant exculpates it from liability.
  3. 3 Whether the cleaning system in place was adequate to prevent hazards.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the Defendant or the Third Party. The cleaning system in place was adequate, with overlapping shifts during peak hours and trained staff to report and address hazards. The only evidence of the spill came from the First Plaintiff, and no other witness observed any liquid on the floor. The disclaimer defense was rejected due to insufficient evidence of its visibility to the Plaintiff. The court concluded that it would have been impossible to prevent the fall if the spill occurred mere seconds before or during the incident. Accordingly, the Defendant and Third Party were not liable for the Plaintiff's injuries.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs of suit on the scale between party and party.