Skead and Others v Melco Elevator (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Another (07/19770) [2010] ZAGPJHC 105; [2010] 3 All SA 445 (GSJ) (3 March 2010)

Skead and Others v Melco Elevator (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Another (07/19770) [2010] ZAGPJHC 105; [2010] 3 All SA 445 (GSJ) (3 March 2010)

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence against either respondent. The evidence established that the escalator's poly-V-belt failure was a sudden, unforeseeable event caused by a manufacturing defect, which could not have been detected or prevented by reasonable maintenance or inspection. Both respondents had in place comprehensive maintenance systems exceeding statutory and manufacturer requirements, and the second respondent had lawfully delegated maintenance to a qualified contractor. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply to shift the burden of proof, as the facts were sufficiently known and did not support an inference of negligence....

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Denise Skead; Applicant: Cheryl Austick; Applicant: June Kelly; Respondent: Melco Elevator (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Liberty Group Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2010
Case Number
07/19770
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Claims against both respondents dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jajbhay, Mbha, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Negligence, Premises Liability, Causation, Maintenance of Common Areas, Onus of Proof, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligence Premises Liability Causation Maintenance of Common Areas Onus of Proof +1 more

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denise Skead

Applicant

Cheryl Austick

Applicant

June Kelly

Applicant

Melco Elevator (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Liberty Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were negligent in the maintenance and operation of the escalator resulting in the appellants' injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the malfunction of the escalator was foreseeable and preventable by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence against either respondent. The evidence established that the escalator's poly-V-belt failure was a sudden, unforeseeable event caused by a manufacturing defect, which could not have been detected or prevented by reasonable maintenance or inspection. Both respondents had in place comprehensive maintenance systems exceeding statutory and manufacturer requirements, and the second respondent had lawfully delegated maintenance to a qualified contractor. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply to shift the burden of proof, as the facts were sufficiently known and did not support an inference of negligence....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Claims against both respondents dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • All claims by the appellants against the first and second respondents are dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of both respondents.