Pienaar v Vukile Property Fund (A140/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 127 (25 June 2015)

Pienaar v Vukile Property Fund (A140/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 127 (25 June 2015)

The court held that the respondent took reasonable steps to maintain the safety of the Centre by appointing a competent independent contractor to clean the floors, implementing a cleaning regime, and regularly inspecting the premises. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, particularly expert cleaning testimony, to show that the respondent's cleaning system was inadequate or that the tiles were slippery on the day of the incident. The architect's evidence was found insufficient, as he was not a cleaning expert and his test was not scientifically reliable. The court applied the test for negligence and found that the respondent discharged its duty of care and was not...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 127
Parties
Appellant: Karen Pienaar; Respondent: Vukile Property Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Case Number
A140/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Zyl, Daffue, Mia
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Slip and Fall, Delegation of Duty
Delict Negligence Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Slip and Fall Delegation of Duty

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Pienaar

Appellant

Vukile Property Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was negligent in failing to keep the floor of the shopping centre reasonably safe for the public.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's duty to prevent harm could be delegated to an independent contractor.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent's negligence caused her injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent took reasonable steps to maintain the safety of the Centre by appointing a competent independent contractor to clean the floors, implementing a cleaning regime, and regularly inspecting the premises. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, particularly expert cleaning testimony, to show that the respondent's cleaning system was inadequate or that the tiles were slippery on the day of the incident. The architect's evidence was found insufficient, as he was not a cleaning expert and his test was not scientifically reliable. The court applied the test for negligence and found that the respondent discharged its duty of care and was not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.