This blog was co-authored by Edith Mugadza, Candidate Attorney.

In February 2025, the high court awarded the claimant 80% of his agreed and proven damages in an action brought against the Minister of Police in a situation where the claimant fell off a landing unprotected by a railing or warning sign.

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after having fallen from an unsecured landing at the Stanford Police Station on 10 August 2016. The evidence was that the claimant was directed to the water tap by a police officer. He walked to an area at the back of the station which was unauthorised for public access and while being watched by SAPS members. He walked directly off the landing.

It was common cause that there was no rail on the landing and that there were stairs to the right of the landing. The claimant denied that he saw the stairs.

The claimant alleged that the incident was caused by the negligence of the South African Police Services (SAPS) members, who failed to ensure the safety of the premises by not erecting a rail on the landing or failing to display warning signs. The defendant denied its negligence and liability and alternatively alleged that the claimant was contributorily negligent when he allegedly jumped from the landing.

The court restated the legal principles regarding the evaluation of evidence, establishing the legal duty of care, the analysis of reasonableness and foreseeability, causation and intervening events, contributory negligence and the apportionment of damages.

The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant was directed to the tap by a police officer and thus authorised to go to the back of the police station. The officer should have foreseen the possibility that the claimant was at risk of falling off the landing. The defendant was under a legal duty to ensure that the premises were safe when used by members of the public, including the claimant. The officer’s conduct, coupled with the absence of a railing or a warning sign was sufficient to constitute negligence and a breach of duty of care by the defendant.

The court held that the claimant himself failed to keep a proper look-out and that the unreasonable failure to focus on where he was walking was a proximate cause of his fall and attendant injuries, despite the absence of a rail.

The claimant ought to have kept a proper look out. As a reasonable person, should have foreseen a possibility of harm in the circumstances. He had a duty to watch where he walked and should have exercised caution. The court determined that the plaintiff’s actions partially contributed to the incident and awarded him 80% of his agreed or proven damages.

The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining safe public premises and a reminder that members of the public must exercise caution and common sense.

Stephens v Minister of Police (21884/2017) [2025] ZAWCHC 72 (28 February 2025)