Stacey v Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd (A380/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 117 (13 September 2018)

Stacey v Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd (A380/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 117 (13 September 2018)

The court found that the appellant did slip and fall on a spilt ice-cream, as supported by direct and circumstantial evidence. The respondent's cleaning regime was inadequate given the size of the walkway, heavy foot traffic, and the time a spillage could remain undetected (up to 40 minutes). The respondent failed to appreciate its duty to protect public safety and did not allocate sufficient cleaning staff, despite the Service Level Agreement allowing for more cleaners. The cost of additional cleaners would have been minimal and would have reduced the risk. The respondent's management failed to consider the implications of its responsibilities, and the cleaning regime was not tailored to...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 117
Parties
Appellant: Pamela Gail Stacey; Respondent: Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Case Number
A380/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Respondent declared liable for damages arising from the incident.
Judges
Bozalek, Fortuin, Nuku
Legal Topics
Negligence, Slip and Fall, Adequacy of Cleaning Regime, Duty of Care, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Public Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Land and Property Negligence Slip and Fall Adequacy of Cleaning Regime Duty of Care Res Ipsa Loquitur +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pamela Gail Stacey

Appellant

Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved she slipped on a liquid substance on the walkway.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had in place an appropriate and adequate cleaning regime.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent adhered to its cleaning regime on the day of the incident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant did slip and fall on a spilt ice-cream, as supported by direct and circumstantial evidence. The respondent's cleaning regime was inadequate given the size of the walkway, heavy foot traffic, and the time a spillage could remain undetected (up to 40 minutes). The respondent failed to appreciate its duty to protect public safety and did not allocate sufficient cleaning staff, despite the Service Level Agreement allowing for more cleaners. The cost of additional cleaners would have been minimal and would have reduced the risk. The respondent's management failed to consider the implications of its responsibilities, and the cleaning regime was not tailored to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Respondent declared liable for damages arising from the incident.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including costs of the application for leave to appeal.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: The respondent is declared liable for such damages as the appellant can prove arising out of the incident on 12 January 2012 at Canal Walk Shopping Centre.