Pienaar v Vukile Property Fund Ltd (2976/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 32 (6 March 2014)

Pienaar v Vukile Property Fund Ltd (2976/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 32 (6 March 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence did not show that the replacement tiles were hazardous or more slippery than the surrounding tiles on the day of the incident. The plaintiff's expert did not conduct scientific tests and was not a cleaning specialist. The defendant demonstrated that regular cleaning was performed and that no prior incidents had occurred at the location. The court preferred the testimony of the centre manager regarding the plaintiff's footwear and conduct. It was held that the defendant took reasonable steps to maintain the safety of the premises and was not...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: Karen Pienaar; Defendant: Vukile Property Fund Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2014
Case Number
2976/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Phase Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; absolution from the instance with costs.
Judges
Kruger R
Legal Topics
Premises Liability, Negligence, Slip and Fall, Burden of Proof
Delict Land and Property Premises Liability Negligence Slip and Fall Burden 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Pienaar

Plaintiff

Vukile Property Fund Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Phase Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a legal duty to maintain safe premises for the public and the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its duty by failing to keep the floor tiles safe and clean, resulting in a hazardous condition.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence caused her fall and injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence did not show that the replacement tiles were hazardous or more slippery than the surrounding tiles on the day of the incident. The plaintiff's expert did not conduct scientific tests and was not a cleaning specialist. The defendant demonstrated that regular cleaning was performed and that no prior incidents had occurred at the location. The court preferred the testimony of the centre manager regarding the plaintiff's footwear and conduct. It was held that the defendant took reasonable steps to maintain the safety of the premises and was not...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; absolution from the instance with costs.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.