Save-A tyre v Bowers (CA 247/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 22 (26 April 2011)

Save-A tyre v Bowers (CA 247/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 22 (26 April 2011)

The court found that the disclaimer notice was sufficiently displayed and that the respondent was bound by its terms. However, the disclaimer was intended to cover work-related occurrences, not injuries sustained by customers invited to view goods for sale in the work area. The appellant could not both invite customers to inspect mag wheels and simultaneously warn them not to enter the area. The injury did not arise from work being performed but from the sale display. Applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur, the court held that the unexplained fall of the mag wheel, which was under the appellant's control, gave rise to an inference of negligence. The appellant failed to rebut this inference....

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 22
Parties
Appellant: Save-A Tyre; Respondent: Gloria Doloros Bowers
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2011
Case Number
CA 247/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment on Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; quantum reduced; costs apportioned.
Judges
J.M. Roberson, A. Andrews
Legal Topics
Negligence, Disclaimer Notice, Quantum of Damages, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Disclaimer Notice Quantum of Damages Res Ipsa Loquitur

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Save-A Tyre

Appellant

Gloria Doloros Bowers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment on Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in securing the mag wheel that fell and injured the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the disclaimer notice exempted the appellant from liability for the respondent's injury.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the magistrate was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disclaimer notice was sufficiently displayed and that the respondent was bound by its terms. However, the disclaimer was intended to cover work-related occurrences, not injuries sustained by customers invited to view goods for sale in the work area. The appellant could not both invite customers to inspect mag wheels and simultaneously warn them not to enter the area. The injury did not arise from work being performed but from the sale display. Applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur, the court held that the unexplained fall of the mag wheel, which was under the appellant's control, gave rise to an inference of negligence. The appellant failed to rebut this inference....

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; quantum reduced; costs apportioned.

Orders

  • The magistrate's judgment is set aside and substituted with judgment for the plaintiff for payment of damages of R10,000 and costs.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay 40% of the appellant's costs of appeal.