Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Pillay (900/2020) [2021] ZASCA 125 (29 September 2021)

Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Pillay (900/2020) [2021] ZASCA 125 (29 September 2021)

The court found that the risk of harm from the automated boom gate was reasonably foreseeable, particularly given its location adjacent to a frequently used pedestrian route and the absence of warning signs at the time of the incident. The appellant's reliance on controlled tests and the lightweight nature of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 125
Parties
Appellant: Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cherylene Sarah Pillay
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Case Number
900/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Navsa, Mocumie, Makgoka, Schippers, Gorven
Legal Topics
Negligence, Foreseeability of Harm, Contributory Negligence, Occupier Liability
Delict Land and Property Negligence Foreseeability of Harm Contributory Negligence Occupier Liability

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cherylene Sarah Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the appellant negligent in the operation of the automated boom gate at the shopping centre?
  2. 2 Was the risk of harm to pedestrians reasonably foreseeable and did the appellant take reasonable steps to guard against it?
  3. 3 Did the respondent contribute to her own injury through inattentiveness?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the risk of harm from the automated boom gate was reasonably foreseeable, particularly given its location adjacent to a frequently used pedestrian route and the absence of warning signs at the time of the incident. The appellant's reliance on controlled tests and the lightweight nature of the boom did not negate the risk, as the tests did not account for impacts to the head or face. The fact that safety measures, such as warning signs and manual operation, were implemented only after the incident further demonstrated that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The respondent was found to be contributorily negligent for failing to pay...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.