Gabriel and Another v Enchanted Bed and Breakfast CC (5566/2001) [2002] ZAWCHC 40; 2002 (6) SA 597 (C) (2 August 2002)

Gabriel and Another v Enchanted Bed and Breakfast CC (5566/2001) [2002] ZAWCHC 40; 2002 (6) SA 597 (C) (2 August 2002)

The court found that the defendant, as an innkeeper, was strictly liable for the theft of the plaintiffs' property under the Praetorian edict. The defendant failed to prove any of the special defences, including that the loss was unforeseen or irresistible, or that the plaintiffs were negligent in the manner they secured their valuables and keys. The exemption clause displayed at the premises and in brochures was not brought to the plaintiffs' attention and was therefore ineffective. The evidence established that the burglary was foreseeable given the crime rate in the area, and the defendant's failure to secure the bathroom window constituted negligence. The plaintiffs acted reasonably...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 40
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Lyon Gabriel; Plaintiff: Barbara Phillipa Gabriel; Defendant: Enchanted Bed and Breakfast CC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2002
Case Number
5566/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Judges
R B Cleaver
Legal Topics
Praetorian Edict Liability, Innkeeper Strict Liability, Negligence, Exemption Clauses, Contributory Negligence
Land and Property Delict Praetorian Edict Liability Innkeeper Strict Liability Negligence Exemption Clauses Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Edward Lyon Gabriel

Plaintiff

Barbara Phillipa Gabriel

Plaintiff

Enchanted Bed and Breakfast CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant innkeeper is strictly liable for the theft of the plaintiffs' property under the Praetorian edict.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is exempted from liability by virtue of displayed notices or brochures.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs were negligent in the manner in which they secured their valuables and keys.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, as an innkeeper, was strictly liable for the theft of the plaintiffs' property under the Praetorian edict. The defendant failed to prove any of the special defences, including that the loss was unforeseen or irresistible, or that the plaintiffs were negligent in the manner they secured their valuables and keys. The exemption clause displayed at the premises and in brochures was not brought to the plaintiffs' attention and was therefore ineffective. The evidence established that the burglary was foreseeable given the crime rate in the area, and the defendant's failure to secure the bathroom window constituted negligence. The plaintiffs acted reasonably...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of R252,000.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs, including the qualifying fees of expert witnesses Messrs Trigg and Powell, who are declared necessary witnesses.