This blog is co-authored by Daniel Kariithi, a candidate attorney.

A December 2025 judgment from the High Court reinforces the principle that the foundational requirement in slip and trip cases is proof of the existence of a hazardous condition that caused the harm.

On 11 April 2021, whilst shopping at the first defendant’s store, the claimant slipped on a wet, slippery floor in the main thoroughfare and fell, sustaining injuries to her arm and head. She alleged that the defendant owed a duty to ensure the floors were safe and to display adequate, noticeable warnings where hazards existed, and that its negligent breach of that duty caused her serious bodily injury.The claimant alleged that the store acted negligently by failing to comply with these duties and that she suffered serious bodily injuries due to this negligence.

The main considerations for the court were: i) whether there was a wet, slippery, or hazardous substance on the floor at the time the claimant fell; ii) if so, whether the first defendant ought to have known it was there; iii) whether the first defendant breached a legal duty to the claimant by failing remedy the hazard; iv) if so, whether the breach caused the claimant’s injuries; and v) whether liability should be attributed to the store. 

The court held that the foundational requirement in slip-and-fall cases is proof of a hazardous condition that caused the fall. There was a lack of evidence that there was a hazardous substance on the floor at the time she fell. When presenting her case, neither the claimant nor any of her witnesses could speak to the presence of a hazardous substance being on floor that could have caused the incident. Further, when asked directly by the court, the claimant admitted to not seeing any substance on the floor.

The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a hazardous substance on the floor when she fell. Further, it held that, in the absence of such proof, no negligent failure could be attributed to the first respondent, nor could the claimant establish a link between the negligence or the injury. The claimant’s case was dismissed.

This case reinforces that the onus is on the claimant to prove the negligence caused the harm suffered in personal injury claims.

Gailis v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd and Another (11651/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 579 (11 December 2025)