Mahomed v Pep Kor Ltd (1499/08) [2010] ZAECGHC 53 (17 June 2010)

Mahomed v Pep Kor Ltd (1499/08) [2010] ZAECGHC 53 (17 June 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her fall was caused by a projection or obstacle on the defendant's tiled floor. The evidence showed only minute variations in tile levels, which were not readily perceptible and did not constitute a hazard. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen or guarded against the risk posed by such minor irregularities. Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the cause of her fall and her footwear was inconsistent and less credible than the defendant's witnesses. The duty of care owed by the defendant did not extend to guarding against such negligible risks. Consequently, the plaintiff did not...

Citation
[2010] ZAECGHC 53
Parties
Plaintiff: Isabel Dorothy Mahomed; Defendant: Pep Kor Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Case Number
1499/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
J G Grogan
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Premises Liability, Onus of Proof
Delict Land and Property Negligence Duty of Care Premises Liability 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isabel Dorothy Mahomed

Plaintiff

Pep Kor Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's fall was caused by a projection or obstacle on the defendant's tiled floor.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its duty of care towards the plaintiff by failing to guard against the risk of tripping.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable in delict for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her fall was caused by a projection or obstacle on the defendant's tiled floor. The evidence showed only minute variations in tile levels, which were not readily perceptible and did not constitute a hazard. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen or guarded against the risk posed by such minor irregularities. Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the cause of her fall and her footwear was inconsistent and less credible than the defendant's witnesses. The duty of care owed by the defendant did not extend to guarding against such negligible risks. Consequently, the plaintiff did not...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.