The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed Pick n Pay’s attempts to absolve itself from being liable for injuries sustained by a customer who fell while shopping.
The retailer had made an application to the SCA to appeal two court rulings which found the company liable for injuries sustained by Maria Williams after she slipped, fell and injured herself at a store in the N1 City Mall in Cape Town in November 2017.
It is alleged an oily substance had spilled on the floor which led to her slipping while she was walking to fetch an item from an aisle. As result of the fall, she suffered a soft tissue injury to her left hip and another near her left shoulder joint.
According to court papers, it is alleged Pick n Pay undertook to bear the costs for her medical treatment, but the retailer failed to honour its promise, prompting Williams to institute legal proceedings in the high court. She sought payment for past and future medical and related expenses, past and future loss of earnings and general damages for pain and suffering.
In September 2023 the high court ruled in her favour. The court found the retailer did not provide sufficient evidence to blame Williams for being negligent. The court held the injuries sustained by Williams were directly attributable to the negligent conduct of Pick n Pay’s employees.
Pick n Pay was found to be liable to pay Williams 100% of damages.
Aggrieved by the outcome, Pick n Pay sought leave to appeal the decision on the grounds the court had misdirected itself. However, the application was dismissed due to the company’s failure to show there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
The company further petitioned the SCA but the matter was dismissed in February 2024 on the same grounds as the lower court.
The next month Pick n Pay filed a reconsideration application at the SCA under the Superior Courts Act.
The SCA was to determine whether the decision of the two judges to refuse leave to appeal should be varied and if so, whether the high court erred in holding the company liable, in delict, to compensate Williams for damages.
Pick n Pay conceded it has a duty of care for all patrons to ensure its stores are safe.
“Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, Pick n Pay denies liability for the injuries sustained by Mrs Williams. It asserts the main cause of the incident was the sole negligence of Mrs Williams herself, who allegedly failed to maintain a proper lookout, neglected to take reasonable precautions to avoid the hazard, and thereby failed to prevent her own injury,” read the judgement handed over on Monday. The retailer also wanted Bluedot, the company hired to clean the shop, to share the responsibility.
However, judge Daniel Dlodlo ruled against the company and emphasised the Superior Courts Act is not intended to provide litigants with another bite at the cherry after repeated failures to secure leave to appeal.
“No factual or evidentiary basis has been advanced to suggest another court would reach a different outcome from that of the high court. The record reveals no extraordinary or unusual circumstances warranting intervention by this court. The applicant’s petition amounts to a mere attempt to reargue the merits of its case, which lacks substantive merit,” read the judgment.
Dlodlo dismissed the application with costs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.