Hanson v Liberty Group Ltd and Others (2009/4633) [2011] ZAGPJHC 195 (9 September 2011)

Hanson v Liberty Group Ltd and Others (2009/4633) [2011] ZAGPJHC 195 (9 September 2011)

The court found that the disclaimer notice was directed at parkers and owners of vehicles, not at passengers such as the Plaintiff. The wording of the notice related to the safe custody of vehicles and articles therein, and any person other than the parker or owner would not have realized that the notice referred to them. The Defendants did not take reasonable steps to bring the terms of the disclaimer to the Plaintiff's attention, and the notice was not sufficiently directed at her. Consequently, the disclaimer was invalid and did not exempt the Defendants from liability for the Plaintiff's injuries.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 195
Parties
Plaintiff: Penelop Anne Hope Hanson; Defendant: Liberty Group Limited; Defendant: Pareto Limited; Defendant: Liberty Group Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2011
Case Number
2009/4633
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Determination of Disclaimer Validity
Outcome
The disclaimer raised by the Defendants is invalid and does not exempt them from liability for the Plaintiff's injuries.
Judges
Notshe
Legal Topics
Premises Liability, Disclaimer Notices, Negligence, Occupiers Liability
Delict Land and Property Premises Liability Disclaimer Notices Negligence Occupiers 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penelop Anne Hope Hanson

Plaintiff

Liberty Group Limited

Defendant

Pareto Limited

Defendant

Liberty Group Properties (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Determination of Disclaimer Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disclaimer notice displayed at the entrances to the mall exempts the Defendants from liability for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants took reasonable steps to bring the terms of the disclaimer to the attention of the Plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the disclaimer applies to the Plaintiff as a passenger rather than a parker or owner of a vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disclaimer notice was directed at parkers and owners of vehicles, not at passengers such as the Plaintiff. The wording of the notice related to the safe custody of vehicles and articles therein, and any person other than the parker or owner would not have realized that the notice referred to them. The Defendants did not take reasonable steps to bring the terms of the disclaimer to the Plaintiff's attention, and the notice was not sufficiently directed at her. Consequently, the disclaimer was invalid and did not exempt the Defendants from liability for the Plaintiff's injuries.

Court Disposition

The disclaimer raised by the Defendants is invalid and does not exempt them from liability for the Plaintiff's injuries.

Orders

  • The issue of the validity of the disclaimer is determined in favour of the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendants are not exempt from liability for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.