Cape Town - The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Western Cape High Court in the case of a woman who slipped and fell in the Goodwood Mall, fracturing her elbow.
In March last year, a Western Cape High Court judge granted damages to Nicolene Holtzhausen against Cenprop Real Estate Ltd (Cenprop), the management company in charge of the mall and the Mall’s owner Naheel Investments Ltd (Naheel).
The issues before the SCA were whether Holtzhausen was negligent; whether Cenprop had discharged their duty of care that the premises were safe; and whether a display of a disclaimer notice by the cleaners indemnified Naheel from liability for Holtzhausen’s injuries.
The incident occurred on a rainy Saturday, June 1, 2013 when Holtzhausen, then a 31-year-old clerk employed by the City, visited the Goodwood Mall in Voortrekker Road to draw money.
Holtzhausen’s testimony in the high court was that there was a yellow “wet floor” warning sign standing on the tiled floor, between the two sets of doors.
She testified that she had noticed the floor was wet and slippery but she made her way slowly and about 14 metres from the entrance her feet suddenly gave way from under her, and she fell, suffering a fracture of the elbow.
She instituted a claim in the high court for damages arising from her injury against Cenprop and Naheel, who both denied negligence.
They argued that the incident was caused solely by Holtzhausen’s own negligence in that she did not keep a proper lookout or take reasonable care.
Naheel argued that it had employed Cenprop as a specialist in property management, to manage and physically inspect the premises on a regular basis.
They said Cenprop appointed a professional cleaning company, JKL Cleaning Solutions CC to, among others, spot clean daily any spillage in walkways with warning signage.
Cenprop and Naheel argued that by appointing JKL, they had taken adequate steps to ensure safety of members of the public and prevent them from slipping and falling as alleged.
The SCA rejected this defence, finding Holtzhausen’s evidence that she slipped and fell due to the wet tiles that were slippery and dangerous was “unimpeachable” and as such there was no basis to find her in any way negligent.