Injury Caused by Defective Sandals (201503-0183) [2015] ZACGSO 3 (18 August 2015)

Injury Caused by Defective Sandals (201503-0183) [2015] ZACGSO 3 (18 August 2015)

The Ombud found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient proof that the sandals were defective or that any defect caused her fall and subsequent injury. The inspection reports from the supplier indicated that the sandals passed all quality checks and exhibited only normal wear and tear, particularly on the heel tip and sole, which could reduce grip on wet surfaces but not on normal pavement. There were no other returns of the same product, and the evidence did not establish a causal link between any defect and the complainant's injury. Accordingly, the principles of reasonableness and fairness do not support a recommendation in the complainant's favour.

Citation
[2015] ZACGSO 3
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2015
Case Number
201503-0183
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no recommendation in favour of the complainant.
Judges
Bonita Hughes
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Product Liability, Defective Goods, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Product Liability Defective Goods Burden of Proof

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sandals were defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the supplier is liable for injuries sustained by the complainant due to alleged defects in the sandals.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant provided sufficient proof that the defect caused her injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient proof that the sandals were defective or that any defect caused her fall and subsequent injury. The inspection reports from the supplier indicated that the sandals passed all quality checks and exhibited only normal wear and tear, particularly on the heel tip and sole, which could reduce grip on wet surfaces but not on normal pavement. There were no other returns of the same product, and the evidence did not establish a causal link between any defect and the complainant's injury. Accordingly, the principles of reasonableness and fairness do not support a recommendation in the complainant's favour.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no recommendation in favour of the complainant.

Orders

  • No recommendation is made in favour of the complainant.
  • The supplier is not required to compensate the complainant for her injury.