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

Case Note

Case Name: Norma Gailis v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd and J & M Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd
Citation: Case No: 11651/2022
Date: Delivered electronically on 11 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its contribution to the jurisprudence surrounding Aquilian liability in delict law, particularly in circumstances involving slip and fall claims within the retail environment. The findings emphasized the need for clear and credible evidence of a hazardous condition and underscored the necessity of establishing the factual basis for negligence prior to attributing liability to a store owner. Additionally, the court's conclusion highlights the principles governing the legal duties owed by retailers to their customers in ensuring safe premises, making this case a pertinent reference for future claims in similar contexts.

Cases Cited

• SFW Group Ltd and another v Martell et cie and others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA)
• Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 SCA
• Baring Eiendomme v Roux [2001] 1 All SA 399 (SCA)
• Montoeli v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd 1999 JDR 0632 (W)
• Holtzhausen v Cenprop Real Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another 2021 (4) 221 (WCC)
• Brauns v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2004 (6) SA 211 (E)
• Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd v Silberman 2009 (1) SA 265 (SCA)
• Probst v Pick 'n Pay Retailers 1998 (2) All SA 186 (W)

Legislation Cited

• Apportionment of Damages Act 35 of 1956
• Occupational Health and Safety Act (specific provisions not stated)

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 33(4)

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case revolves around a delictual claim initiated by plaintiff Norma Gailis against Woolworths and J&M Cleaning Services for injuries suffered due to a purported slip on a wet floor at a Woolworths store. The court found that Gailis failed to prove the existence of a hazardous condition that would establish liability under Aquilian principles, leading to the dismissal of her claim.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues addressed in the case included:

• The presence of a hazardous or slippery substance on the floor at the time of the incident.
• Whether Woolworths breached its duty of care to maintain a safe environment for customers.
• The evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to establish causation linking Woolworths' alleged negligence to the injuries claimed.

Held

The court held that the plaintiff did not establish any evidence of a hazardous or slippery condition on the floor at the time of her fall. The court emphasized the lack of credible witnesses corroborating the presence of any danger, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and an order for her to pay the costs.

THE FACTS

On 11 April 2021, Norma Gailis suffered injuries while shopping at Woolworths in Constantia Village. She claimed she slipped on a wet and slippery floor while pushing a trolley. Woolworths admitted the fall but denied the presence of any wet or slippery substance, contending that Gailis lost her footing due to her own actions. The case involved testimonies from six witnesses, including family members and Woolworths employees.

The plaintiff sustained a fracture to her left arm, however, during the trial, she admitted that she had not been looking down and could not identify any substance on the floor prior to the incident. Departmental testimonies contradicted her claims concerning the presence of water or cleaning activities leading up to her fall. In particular, no other witnesses observed a hazardous condition on the floor.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining:

• Whether there was a wet or hazardous substance on the floor at the time of the incident.
• If there was such a substance, whether Woolworths was aware or should have been aware of it.
• Whether Woolworths breached a duty of care by failing to prevent the plaintiff’s fall due to any existing hazard.
• The causal relationship between Woolworths' actions or inactions and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis centered on the absence of evidence confirming the existence of a hazard on the floor. The plaintiff's admission that she had not looked down, coupled with contradictory statements made by her and her witnesses, significantly weakened her case. Despite testimony from family members about their perceptions of danger, it was concluded that these observations did not occur until after the incident, thus failing to prove that the floor presented a hazard at the time of the fall.

The court also considered the reliability and credibility of the witnesses, which was crucial in establishing the evidentiary burden. Significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony regarding the circumstances of her fall further eroded her claims. Moreover, the responses from a Woolworths employee confirmed that the store's internal procedures regarding safety and cleanliness were followed, reflecting a reasonable standard of care.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered Norma Gailis to pay the costs of the defendants on Scale B. The ruling reinforced the principle that a plaintiff must substantiate claims of negligence with compelling evidentiary support.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case reinforces several key legal principles in South African delict law:

1. The obligation of a plaintiff in slip and fall cases to prove the existence of a hazardous or slippery condition prior to establishing Aquilian liability.
2. The importance of credible, corroborative evidence in delict claims, steering a court's assessment of probabilities in favour of the defendant where the plaintiff's evidence is inconsistent.
3. The principle that the absence of an observable hazard negates liability, regardless of the emotions or injuries suffered by the plaintiff following an incident.

Conclusively, this case serves as an illustrative precedent on the necessity for plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases to thoroughly substantiate their claims with clear, credible evidence before successful restitution can be awarded.