Memorable Order of Tin Hats v Kenneth Paul Els (488/2021) [2022] ZASCA 99 (22 June 2022)

Memorable Order of Tin Hats v Kenneth Paul Els (488/2021) [2022] ZASCA 99 (22 June 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the appellant, the Memorable Order of Tin Hats, owed a duty of care to its members and the public and its omission to install a second handrail was negligent and wrongful, the respondent failed to prove that this omission was the factual and legal cause of his injury. The evidence showed that the respondent lost his balance and fell while assisting a wheelchair-bound patron, and that even if a second handrail had been present, the accident would not have been averted due to the combined weight and circumstances. The court found no culpably causative relationship between the omission and the harm suffered. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded and...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: The Memorable Order of Tin Hats; Respondent: Kenneth Paul Els
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Case Number
488/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and the expert witness.
Judges
Plasket, Carelse, Hughes, Tsoka, Makaula
Legal Topics
Negligence, Omission Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Premises Liability
Delict Negligence Omission Liability Duty of Care Causation 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Memorable Order of Tin Hats

Appellant

Kenneth Paul Els

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Gauteng Division, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's omission to install a second handrail on the stairs constituted negligence and wrongfulness.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of its members and the public.
  3. 3 Whether the omission was the factual and legal cause of the respondent's injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the appellant, the Memorable Order of Tin Hats, owed a duty of care to its members and the public and its omission to install a second handrail was negligent and wrongful, the respondent failed to prove that this omission was the factual and legal cause of his injury. The evidence showed that the respondent lost his balance and fell while assisting a wheelchair-bound patron, and that even if a second handrail had been present, the accident would not have been averted due to the combined weight and circumstances. The court found no culpably causative relationship between the omission and the harm suffered. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and the expert witness.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and replaced with an order in the following terms: