In a January 2025 judgment the high court dealt with a claim for damages by a claimant who tripped and fell in a shopping mall. The claimant alleged that the defendants who owned the mall were responsible for the area where the incident occurred and failed to ensure it was safe for patrons. The central issue was whether the defendants were negligent in failing to warn the claimant of the hazard created by construction work which caused the claimant’s injuries. The court held that the defendants were liable for 100% of the claimant’s proven damages.

On 10 January 2019, the claimant visited the shopping mall. As she walked through the passageway where construction work was being carried out, she tripped and fell in an area where tiling was incomplete. The floor had sections that were not covered with tiles, and the exposed areas were black, making it difficult to differentiate from the tiled sections. The claimant sustained injuries to her leg and arm as a result of the fall.

The claimant argued that the defendants were negligent in failing to secure the area where the fall occurred and in not providing adequate warning signs to alert patrons of the construction work. The claimant contended that there were no beacons or warning signs at the entrance she used or around the area where she fell. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that there were indemnity notices at the entrance and warning signs around the construction area, and they pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the claimant for failing to take cognisance of these warnings.

The court had to determine if the defendants owed a duty of care to the claimant and if their failure to secure the area and provide adequate warnings constituted negligence.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including testimonies from the claimant, her husband, and the defendants’ employee. The court found that the claimant’s testimony was consistent and credible, and there were no visible warning signs or beacons at the entrance or around the area where she fell. The court noted that the defendants’ employee, who testified about the presence of cones and indemnity notices, did not provide corroborative evidence or documents to support his evidence.

The court also considered the principle of causation, determining that the defendants should have foreseen the reasonable possibility of someone being injured due to the incomplete tiling and taken steps to prevent such an occurrence. The defendants failed to take reasonable steps to secure the area and provide adequate warnings, and this failure directly caused the claimant’s injuries. In the circumstances, no negligence was attributed to the claimant.

This case underscores the risks of premises liability and the duty of care that property owners and managers have towards individuals on their premises. The court’s decision highlights that property owners and managers must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their premises, especially during construction or maintenance work. The ruling emphasises the need for clear and visible warning signs to alert patrons of potential hazards.

Tshose v Kyostyle (Pty) Ltd t/a Maponya Investment Holdings and Another (1205/2020 2270/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 314 (31 December 2024)