In November 2025, the High Court dismissed a claim arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a shopping mall, confirming that not all accidents imply fault or liability.
The claimant slipped on a “slap” chip on the mall’s walkway and sustained a fractured wrist. She alleged that the mall’s independent cleaning contractor were negligent in failing to detect and remove the chip spillage timeously. She relied on the principle of (res ipsa loquitur), doctrine arguing that because the incident was admitted by the cleaning contractor, the mere occurrence of the incident justified an inference of negligence. The claimant alleged that the cleaning contractor did not have an adequate cleaning system in place to promptly detect the chip spillage and attend to it within a reasonable time. If they had an adequate cleaning system in place, the system would have prevented her slip and fall from happening.
The cleaning contractor denied liability and relied on the terms of its Master Service Agreement with the managing agent, which expressly excluded any obligation to continuously monitor for spillages or to detect hazards unless notified. It argued that it did not owe the claimant a legal duty to detect the chip spillage.
Crucially, the CCTV footage showed that the chip fell onto the floor approximately 15 seconds before the claimant slipped. A cleaner arrived at the scene within seconds after the fall and cleaned the area.
The court decided that the cleaning contractor did not owe a legal duty to the claimant to detect spillages. That responsibility lay with the managing agent, which retained control over monitoring and safety systems at the mall. The court found that the Master Service Agreement between the managing agent and the cleaning contractor was binding, despite not being signed, as the parties’ conduct triggered deeming provisions contained in the Agreement. The cleaning contractor could not be held liable for failing to perform a duty it did not have.
Additionally, the Court rejected the application of res ipsa loquitur, holding that negligence cannot be inferred simply because an accident occurs. Given the extremely short time between the spillage and the fall, the Court decided that no reasonable cleaning system could have detected and remedied the hazard in time.
This judgment serves as a reminder to property owners, managing agents, and cleaning contractors that liability in slip-and-fall claims is fact-specific. Realistic safety systems and objective evidence such as CCTV footage remain critical in defending premises liability claims. Not every accident implies fault, and the law does not require constant or instant detection of hazards.
Manuel v Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd [2025] ZAWCHC 533