In a February 2025 judgment, the High Court addressed the issue of liability in a slip and fall case involving the claimant, a 72-year-old pensioner, who sustained serious injuries an open-air retail and dining operation due to a wet and slippery wooden walkway. The court had to determine whether the defendant, breached its duty of care by failing to maintain a safe environment for visitors and whether the claimant’s actions contributed to her fall.

The court emphasised that the defendant had a legal duty to keep the wooden decking reasonably safe for the public that use it during trading hours, bearing in mind that shoppers will spend much of their time with their attention on goods and merchandise being displayed and not on the floor to ensure that every step they took was safe. The court concluded that the defendant’s omission in failing to take reasonable steps to detect or dry the dew-laden walkway, or to warn the claimant of the slippery surface, was negligent and caused the claimant’s fall.

On 27 July 2019, the claimant visited the defendant’s premises. The premises host various shops housed in pop-up containers, with wooden decking connecting the retail spaces. The claimant was walking between the shops when she turned right near one of the shops and encountered a stack of crates protruding from the front of a container. As she swerved to avoid the crates, her feet slipped on the wet and slippery wooden deck, causing her to fall heavily onto her right side and sustain a compound fracture of her femur and other injuries.

The court found that the defendant was negligent in not maintaining a safe environment for visitors. The evidence showed that the deck was wet from dew, at least in patches, and that it was sufficiently slippery to cause or materially contribute to the claimant’s fall. Both the claimant and her husband testified credibly that they felt moisture and found the deck “reasonably wet” and “seepglad” (soap slippery). The court noted that the presence of crates along the walkway further increased the likelihood that a customer might need to sidestep or make a quick turn, elevating the risk of a slip on a damp surface.

Regarding the issue of contributory negligence, the court concluded that the claimant’s attention was focused on her shopping and not on the floor, which is a reasonable expectation for shoppers. The court held that the claimant proceeded slowly along the wooden deck but slipped and fell due to the crate and the wet wooden slippery deck which posed a danger to her. Under the circumstances, there was no basis the court could find that the claimant in any way negligent. The court also found that the claimant’s footwear was not particularly improper and that a more “robust” sole would not have averted the slip.

Barnard v Peregrine Plaza (Pty) Ltd (14475/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 48 (18 February 2025)