Pauw v Du Preez (20197/2014) [2015] ZASCA 80 (28 May 2015)

Pauw v Du Preez (20197/2014) [2015] ZASCA 80 (28 May 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's omission to install a safety railing on the stairway was both wrongful and negligent, as it created an inherently dangerous situation. The appellant conceded liability for the omission. The only issue for determination was whether the respondent was contributorily negligent. The court found that the respondent's physical disability did not render her actions negligent, as she was capable and experienced in handling stairs. There was no evidence that the respondent failed to keep a proper lookout or acted carelessly. The cause of her fall remained unexplained, and mere loss of balance does not constitute negligence. The appellant failed...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 80
Parties
Appellant: Marianne Alet Pauw; Respondent: Gertruida Elizabeth Du Preez
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2015
Case Number
20197/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Brand, Leach, Saldulker, Dambuza, Gorven
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Bodily Injury
Delict Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Bodily Injury

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marianne Alet Pauw

Appellant

Gertruida Elizabeth Du Preez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's omission to install a safety railing on the stairway was wrongful and negligent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was contributorily negligent in causing her own fall.
  3. 3 Whether liability should be reduced due to any contributory negligence by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's omission to install a safety railing on the stairway was both wrongful and negligent, as it created an inherently dangerous situation. The appellant conceded liability for the omission. The only issue for determination was whether the respondent was contributorily negligent. The court found that the respondent's physical disability did not render her actions negligent, as she was capable and experienced in handling stairs. There was no evidence that the respondent failed to keep a proper lookout or acted carelessly. The cause of her fall remained unexplained, and mere loss of balance does not constitute negligence. The appellant failed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed, with costs.