Kemp v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a Shoprite Despatch (2740/2014) [2016] ZAECPEHC 19 (5 May 2016)

Kemp v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a Shoprite Despatch (2740/2014) [2016] ZAECPEHC 19 (5 May 2016)

The court found the plaintiff's version credible and reliable, while the defendant's witness was inconsistent and unreliable. The evidence established that the floor was not dry and that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of someone slipping in the butchery section. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident, such as monitoring, cleaning, and providing warning signs. The plaintiff was instructed to work in a hazardous area and was not adequately warned. The defendant's alternative plea of contributory negligence failed, as it was the plaintiff's first time in the area and the hazard was not readily visible. The defendant was negligent and liable for the...

Citation
[2016] ZAECPEHC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Gideon Kemp; Defendant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a Shoprite Despatch
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 May 2016
Case Number
2740/2014
Procedural Posture
Delictual Liability Action / Liability Determination; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Defendant held liable for damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of injuries sustained on 7 December 2011; quantum to be determined separately.
Judges
FY Renqe
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Slip and Fall, Contributory Negligence, Premises Liability
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Slip and Fall Contributory Negligence Premises 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Kemp

Plaintiff

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a Shoprite Despatch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Liability Action / Liability Determination; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent a dangerous situation on its premises resulting in the plaintiff's injury.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the butchery section.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed to his own injury through negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version credible and reliable, while the defendant's witness was inconsistent and unreliable. The evidence established that the floor was not dry and that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of someone slipping in the butchery section. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident, such as monitoring, cleaning, and providing warning signs. The plaintiff was instructed to work in a hazardous area and was not adequately warned. The defendant's alternative plea of contributory negligence failed, as it was the plaintiff's first time in the area and the hazard was not readily visible. The defendant was negligent and liable for the...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of injuries sustained on 7 December 2011; quantum to be determined separately.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable to pay to the plaintiff such damages as the plaintiff is able to prove that he suffered as a result of the injuries sustained on 7 December 2011 at Shoprite Despatch, Dr Rabie Street, Despatch.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs occasioned by the hearing of the merits.