In a January 2025 judgment, the High Court dealt with a claim for damages by the claimant, who slipped and fell on a wet floor at a restaurant owned by the defendant. The central issue was whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises and whether their negligence caused the claimant’s injuries. The court held that the defendant was liable for 100% of the claimant’s proven damages

The claimant visited the restaurant in February 2017. As she walked through the restaurant, she slipped on a wet substance on the floor and fell, sustaining injuries. The claimant alleged that the defendant failed to ensure the safety of patrons by not keeping the floor dry and safe to walk on, failing to place warning signs indicating that the floor was wet, and failing to cordon off the wet area.

The defendant argued that there were indemnity notices placed at the entrance of the restaurant and warning signs around the area where the plaintiff fell, indicating that the floor might be wet. They also claimed that the plaintiff was negligent by not keeping a proper lookout, walking at an unreasonable speed surprisingly, and not wearing appropriate footwear, which contributed to her fall. The defendants maintained that they had taken reasonable steps to secure the area and provide adequate warnings, and thus were not responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries

The primary legal issue was whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the safety of the premises and whether their negligence caused the claimant’s injuries because of failure to maintain the area in safe condition and to provide adequate warnings constituted negligence.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including testimonies from the claimant, her witness, and the defendant’s employees. 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 defendant’s employees, who testified about the presence of cones and indemnity notices, did not provide corroborative evidence or documentation to support their claims.

The court determined that the defendant should have known about the wet floor and taken appropriate measures to address it, given the duty of care owed to patrons. The court noted that the restaurant’s cleaning protocols required regular checks and immediate action to address any spills or wet areas, which were not followed in this instance.

The court also considered the principle of causation and determined that the defendant should have foreseen the reasonable possibility of someone being injured due to the wet floor and taken steps to prevent such an occurrence. The court found that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to secure the area and provide adequate warning, and this failure directly caused the claimant’s injuries. The court ordered the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs of suit on a High Court scale, including the reasonable fees of the attorney and counsel.

Morrison v MSA Devco (Pty) Ltd (5229/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 21 (30 January 2025)