Prazares v Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Life Healthcare the Glynnwood (4914/2017) [2021] ZAGPJHC 664 (25 March 2021)

Prazares v Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Life Healthcare the Glynnwood (4914/2017) [2021] ZAGPJHC 664 (25 March 2021)

The defendant hospital foresaw the risk posed by the automatic sliding door and took only minimal steps to prevent harm, namely placing a warning sign on the door itself. This measure was inadequate, as it did not warn persons standing in the trajectory of the door, nor did it indicate the extent of the door's movement. The subsequent installation of a barrier and additional warning signs after the incident demonstrated that further reasonable steps were available and affordable. The defendant's failure to take such steps was negligent and wrongful, as the legal convictions of the community require hospitals to act reasonably to ensure the safety of visitors. The plaintiff was not...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 664
Parties
Plaintiff: Rosa Gracinda Dos Prazares; Defendant: Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Life Healthcare the Glynnwood
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Case Number
4914/2017
Procedural Posture
Delict Claim / Liability Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33
Outcome
Defendant held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages arising from the incident.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Premises Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence
Delict Land and Property Premises Liability Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosa Gracinda Dos Prazares

Plaintiff

Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Life Healthcare the Glynnwood

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delict Claim / Liability Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant hospital was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to the plaintiff from the automatic sliding door.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct was wrongful in terms of South African delictual law.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing her own injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant hospital foresaw the risk posed by the automatic sliding door and took only minimal steps to prevent harm, namely placing a warning sign on the door itself. This measure was inadequate, as it did not warn persons standing in the trajectory of the door, nor did it indicate the extent of the door's movement. The subsequent installation of a barrier and additional warning signs after the incident demonstrated that further reasonable steps were available and affordable. The defendant's failure to take such steps was negligent and wrongful, as the legal convictions of the community require hospitals to act reasonably to ensure the safety of visitors. The plaintiff was not...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages arising from the incident.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable to pay 100% of the damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained by the plaintiff during the incident on 4 February 2017.
  • Costs to be paid by the defendant, including the costs of counsel.