Bennet v Prima Toys and Leisure Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another (4420/2017) [2025] ZAWCHC 515 (7 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Albertino Lorenzo Bennet v Prima Toys and Leisure Trading (Pty) Ltd and Focus Asbestos Removal Services CC
Citation: [2025] ZAWCHC 2 (7 November 2025)
Date: 7 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable owing to its engagement with the intricacies of delictual liability, particularly regarding occupational health and safety standards in South African law. It illustrates the legal consequences for negligence in a workplace setting, addressing the responsibilities of both an employer and a contractor in ensuring the safety of workers. The judgment noteworthy also due to implicating contributory negligence and assessing the comparative fault between the parties involved.

Cases Cited

• Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd v De Valence 1991(1) SA 1 (AD)
• Premier of the Province of the Western Cape v Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd 2003 (2) All SA 465 (SCA)
• Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman [2008] ZASCA 115
• Cenprop Real Estate v Holzhausen 2023 (3) SA 54 (SCA)
• Minister of Police v Skosana 1977(1) SA 31 (A)

Legislation Cited

• Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993
• Construction Regulations, 2003

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 67A

HEADNOTE

Summary

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling through a skylight while conducting work on a warehouse roof owned by the first defendant, Prima Toys. He claimed damages against both Prima Toys and Focus Asbestos Removal Services, the contractor responsible for cleaning the roofs. The court distinguished between the duties of care owed by each defendant, ultimately finding the contractor liable for negligence due to its failure to provide adequate fall protection equipment, while reducing the claim against the owner for contributory negligence.

Key Issues

The central legal issues include the determination of: 1. The duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiff in relation to workplace safety. 2. Whether the plaintiff's own actions constituted contributory negligence. 3. The reliance on Occupational Health and Safety regulations in determining liability.

Held

The court held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for 60% of the plaintiff's proven damages, taking into account the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in not wearing fall protection gear.

THE FACTS

On 13 March 2014, the plaintiff, employed by Focus Asbestos Removal Services, was instructed to work on an asbestos roof owned by Prima Toys. During the course of his work, he inadvertently stepped on a skylight obscured by dirt, resulting in a fall that caused significant injuries. The defendants were accused of failing to provide adequate safety measures, including fall arrest equipment, thus breaching their duty of care.

The plaintiff testified that he had not been provided with a safety harness on the day of the incident, following the removal of the equipment two days prior to the fall. He asserted that he was aware of the dangers associated with working at heights and was trained in the use of safety equipment but was not able to utilize it due to its unavailability.

Both defendants responded to the allegations of negligence with varying defenses. Prima Toys argued that the contractor was solely responsible for the safety of workers, while Focus Asbestos contended that the plaintiff was partly responsible for his injuries due to his failure to utilize available safety measures.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with resolving several critical inquiries including: - The assessment of negligence on the part of both the contractor and the owner of the premises. - Evaluation of the adequacy of the safety measures implemented at the site, particularly regarding the provision and use of fall safety equipment. - Determination of the degree to which the plaintiff’s actions may have contributed to his injuries.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis revolved around the definitions of negligence and the duties owed by employers and contractors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It found that both defendants had failed to meet their respective obligations and had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate risks associated with working at heights. The court placed significant importance on the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding his understanding of safety protocols.

In assessing contributory negligence, the court focused on the plaintiff’s decision to work without a harness, acknowledging that while he had previously utilized safety equipment, circumstances regarding its availability on the date of the incident directly impacted his choices. Thus, a careful balance was struck between the defendants' negligence and the plaintiff’s own actions.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for 60% of his proven damages and were to pay the costs associated with the legal proceedings. The matter of quantum was postponed pending further pre-trial and case management.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment highlights various key legal principles in delictual liability, particularly: - The duty of care owed by both employers and contractors to ensure a safe working environment. - The significance of compliance with statutory obligations under health and safety legislation. - The implications of contributory negligence as a defence in civil claims, establishing the necessity for claimants to adhere to safety protocols and measures provided by their employers.