Kriek v Steinberg (16185/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 351 (11 December 2009)

Kriek v Steinberg (16185/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 351 (11 December 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was negligent. The evidence did not establish that the knob on the balustrade was loose prior to the incident or that the defendant was aware of any defect. The plaintiff's explanation for her loss of balance was speculative and not supported by the facts. The inspection in loco confirmed that the tiles were not slippery and the lighting was adequate. Non-compliance with building regulations was not sufficient to establish liability in the absence of proof of negligence. The defendant and his family had used the staircase without incident, and the risk of harm was not reasonably...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 351
Parties
Plaintiff: Hanria Kriek; Defendant: Johannes Lodewicus Steinberg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2009
Case Number
16185/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated and Stayed
Outcome
Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
Judges
A.P. Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Occupier Liability, Negligence, National Building Regulations, Burden of Proof
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Occupier Liability Negligence National Building Regulations 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanria Kriek

Plaintiff

Johannes Lodewicus Steinberg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated and Stayed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the staircase and balustrade, resulting in the plaintiff's fall.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a visitor to the premises.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with building regulations constitutes negligence per se.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was negligent. The evidence did not establish that the knob on the balustrade was loose prior to the incident or that the defendant was aware of any defect. The plaintiff's explanation for her loss of balance was speculative and not supported by the facts. The inspection in loco confirmed that the tiles were not slippery and the lighting was adequate. Non-compliance with building regulations was not sufficient to establish liability in the absence of proof of negligence. The defendant and his family had used the staircase without incident, and the risk of harm was not reasonably...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.