King v Arbour Town (Pty) Ltd and Another (9117/2015) [2019] ZAKZDHC 10 (13 June 2019)

King v Arbour Town (Pty) Ltd and Another (9117/2015) [2019] ZAKZDHC 10 (13 June 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her daughter slipped on a wet floor. The evidence showed only droplets, not a pool of water, and expert testimony established that the tiles were not slippery when wet. The theory that a child is more likely to slip on droplets due to lighter weight and smaller shoes was speculative and unsupported by calculations. Even if the child did slip on droplets, there was no negligence by the cleaner or cleaning company, as the cleaner's duties were performed reasonably and the allocation of cleaning resources was not shown to be inadequate. The owner had taken reasonable steps by employing a reputable cleaning contractor. There was no...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZDHC 10
Parties
Plaintiff: Fatima King; Defendant: Arbour Town (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Black Ginger 402 (Pty) Ltd t/a Brilliant Cleaning
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Case Number
9117/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Phase
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; second defendant granted absolution from the instance.
Judges
Olsen
Legal Topics
Negligence, Premises Liability, Slip and Fall, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Premises Liability Slip and Fall 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatima King

Plaintiff

Arbour Town (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Black Ginger 402 (Pty) Ltd t/a Brilliant Cleaning

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Phase

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's minor daughter slipped and fell due to a wet floor in the shopping centre's ablution facility.
  2. 2 Whether either defendant was negligent in failing to prevent or warn against the alleged slipping hazard.
  3. 3 Whether liability attaches to the owner or cleaning contractor for the alleged injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her daughter slipped on a wet floor. The evidence showed only droplets, not a pool of water, and expert testimony established that the tiles were not slippery when wet. The theory that a child is more likely to slip on droplets due to lighter weight and smaller shoes was speculative and unsupported by calculations. Even if the child did slip on droplets, there was no negligence by the cleaner or cleaning company, as the cleaner's duties were performed reasonably and the allocation of cleaning resources was not shown to be inadequate. The owner had taken reasonable steps by employing a reputable cleaning contractor. There was no...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; second defendant granted absolution from the instance.

Orders

  • The claim against the first defendant is dismissed with costs.
  • The second defendant is granted absolution from the instance with costs.