South Africa Case Law

Stacey v Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd (A380/2017)

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

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A380/2017

Judges

Bozalek, Fortuin, Nuku

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…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Slip And Fall
• Adequacy Of Cleaning Regime
• Duty Of Care
• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Public Liability

Markus v MEC Department of Public Works & Roads (1688/13)

Markus v MEC Department of Public Works & Roads (1688/13) [2017] ZANWHC 8 (10 February 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1688/13

Judge

A M Kgoele

High Court delict claim arising from a bicycle accident caused by a submerged pothole on a flooded road, with the defendant held liable for 100% of proven damages.

• Negligence
• Road Maintenance
• Failure To Warn
• Contributory Negligence
• Routine Inspection
• Public Liability

Van Aswegen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (14363/2013)

Van Aswegen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (14363/2013) [2016] ZAGPJHC 359 (21 December 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14363/2013

Judge

Mphahlele

The High Court held the defendants liable for injuries the plaintiff suffered after falling on unsafe courthouse stairs at Tzaneen Magistrate’s Court.

• Negligence
• Building Regulations
• Public Liability
• Unsafe Premises
• Public-liability
• Unsafe-premises

Van Vuuren v Ethekwini Municipality (7099/2012)

Van Vuuren v Ethekwini Municipality (7099/2012) [2016] ZAKZDHC 8 (19 February 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7099/2012

Judge

Steyn

The court found that the defendant municipality did not owe a legal duty to supervise or control children using its water slides in circumstances where the parent was present and able to exercise parental supervision. The structure of the slide was found to be safe, and there was no evidence that the harm suffered by the plaintiff's child would have been prevented by the presence of a supervisor. The court held that imposing such a duty on the municipality would create an unsustainable burden and was not supported by public policy or the legal convictions of the community. The primary duty of…

Source excerpt

• Duty Of Care
• Public Liability
• Parental Supervision
• Wrongfulness
• Negligence
• Municipal Facilities

Thompson v Federated Timbers and Others (17408/09, 3984/10)

Thompson v Federated Timbers and Others (17408/09, 3984/10) [2010] ZAKZDHC 72 (8 December 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

17408/09, 3984/10

Judge

Wallis

The court held that DPCS was aware of the incident involving Mr Thompson by mid-2008 and, given the request for insurer details and the nature of the event, a reasonable insured would have appreciated the possibility of a claim arising. The insurance policy required notification to Zurich of any event that may give rise to a claim as soon as reasonably possible. DPCS failed to notify Zurich of the event within a reasonable time, constituting non-compliance with the policy's notice requirements. This failure entitled Zurich to avoid liability for indemnity under the policy. The court found tha…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Public Liability
• Claims Made Basis
• Notice Requirements
• Third Party Indemnity

St Paul Insurance Co. SA Ltd v Eagle Ink System (Cape) (Pty) Ltd (300/08)

St Paul Insurance Co. SA Ltd v Eagle Ink System (Cape) (Pty) Ltd (300/08) [2009] ZASCA 53; 2010 (3) SA 647 (SCA) ; [2009] 4 All SA 46 (SCA) (27 May 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

300/08

Judges

Farlam, Cloete, Lewis, Mhlantla, Tshiqi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that lead contamination in ink fell within a policy exclusion, so the insurer was not liable to indemnify Eagle Ink.

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Public Liability
• Contractual Exclusion Clauses
• Contamination Definition
• Insurance-policy-interpretation
• Public-liability-insurance