Mthembu v Big Save Store, Mabopane (Pty) Ltd (65018/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1013 (10 October 2022)

Mthembu v Big Save Store, Mabopane (Pty) Ltd (65018/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1013 (10 October 2022)

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to its customers and that the descending ramp's angle and uneven surface posed a foreseeable risk of injury. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate this risk, specifically by not installing handrails on both sides of the ramp and not erecting visible warning signs at the exit. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's familiarity with the store or the presence of small warning signs was sufficient, noting that prominent warnings and handrails are necessary safety measures. The evidence showed that the plaintiff's carrying of the basin did not contribute to her fall, as it was light and she...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 1013
Parties
Plaintiff: Christina Matlakala Mthembu; Defendant: Big Save Store, Mabopane (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Case Number
65018/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
The defendant is liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of her slipping and falling at the defendant’s store.
Judges
N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Actio Legis Aquiliae, Negligence, Premises Liability, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care
Delict Land and Property Actio Legis Aquiliae Negligence Premises Liability Contributory Negligence Causation Duty of Care

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christina Matlakala Mthembu

Plaintiff

Big Save Store, Mabopane (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to customers using the descending ramp.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of visible warning signs and handrails constituted a breach of duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's carrying of a plastic basin contributed to her fall and injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to its customers and that the descending ramp's angle and uneven surface posed a foreseeable risk of injury. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate this risk, specifically by not installing handrails on both sides of the ramp and not erecting visible warning signs at the exit. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's familiarity with the store or the presence of small warning signs was sufficient, noting that prominent warnings and handrails are necessary safety measures. The evidence showed that the plaintiff's carrying of the basin did not contribute to her fall, as it was light and she...

Court Disposition

The defendant is liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of her slipping and falling at the defendant’s store.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.