Lombard v Mcdonald's Wingtip (38117/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 877 (14 November 2022)

Lombard v Mcdonald's Wingtip (38117/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 877 (14 November 2022)

The court found that the disclaimer notice at the entrance of the defendant's premises was clear, conspicuous, and written in plain language, satisfying the requirements of section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act. The ramp area where the plaintiff fell formed an integral part of the premises and was covered by the disclaimer. The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the spot where she fell was wet or that the defendant breached its duty of care. The evidence of the defendant's witnesses was accepted as credible, and the defendant's system for detecting and cleaning spillages was found reasonable. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as she did not discharge her...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 877
Parties
Plaintiff: Mandie Lombard; Defendant: McDonald's Wingtip
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2022
Case Number
38117/2020
Procedural Posture
Delict Claim / Merits Trial on Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Vuma
Legal Topics
Slip and Fall, Disclaimer Notice, Duty of Care, Negligence, Consumer Protection Act, Onus of Proof
Delict Slip and Fall Disclaimer Notice Duty of Care Negligence Consumer Protection Act Onus 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandie Lombard

Plaintiff

McDonald's Wingtip

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delict Claim / Merits Trial on Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is absolved of liability by virtue of the disclaimer notice.
  2. 2 Whether the spot where the plaintiff fell was wet.
  3. 3 If the spot was wet, whether the defendant negligently breached its legal duty of care owed to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disclaimer notice at the entrance of the defendant's premises was clear, conspicuous, and written in plain language, satisfying the requirements of section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act. The ramp area where the plaintiff fell formed an integral part of the premises and was covered by the disclaimer. The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the spot where she fell was wet or that the defendant breached its duty of care. The evidence of the defendant's witnesses was accepted as credible, and the defendant's system for detecting and cleaning spillages was found reasonable. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as she did not discharge her...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.