S.D.N v Sunwest International (Pty) Ltd t/a Grand West Casino and Entertainment World (7659/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 327 (31 July 2025)

Case Note

S[...] D[...] N[...] v SUNWEST INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD t/a GRAND WEST CASINO AND ENTERTAINMENT WORLD
Case no: 7659/2021
Neutral citation: [2020] ZAWCHC (31 JULY 2025)
Date: 5 August 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications regarding gross negligence and vicarious liability in the context of public safety. The judgment addresses the responsibilities of establishments to ensure the safety of their premises, particularly in areas frequented by children. The court's findings on the standard of care expected from such establishments contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on negligence and liability in South Africa.

Cases Cited

• Ngubane v South African Transport Services 1991 (1) SA 756 (A)
• Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (AD)
• National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa obo Selepe v ORAWAB Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Bergview Engen One-Stop [2013] BALR 481 (MIBC)
• MV Stella Tingas: Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet v Owners of the MV Stella Tingas 2003 (2) SA 473 (SCA)
• Tshishonga v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2007 (4) SA 135 (LC)

Legislation Cited

[No specific legislation cited in the judgment]

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case revolves around a claim for damages by a father on behalf of his minor child who was electrocuted due to an exposed live wire at the Grand West Casino. The court had to determine whether the defendant acted with gross negligence, leading to the incident. The judgment concluded that the defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, who failed to secure the area after the removal of a Christmas tree, resulting in a dangerous situation for the public.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include the determination of: - Whether the defendant acted with gross negligence. - The extent of the defendant's vicarious liability for the actions of its employees. - The adequacy of safety measures taken by the defendant to protect the public.

Held

The court held that the defendant was grossly negligent in failing to secure the area where the live wire was exposed, leading to the electrocution of the minor child. The defendant was ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff and cover the costs of the action.

THE FACTS

On 8 January 2020, the plaintiff's minor child was electrocuted while holding onto a metal railing at a kiddie ice-skating rink in the Grand West Casino. The incident occurred due to an exposed live wire on the floor, which the defendant had failed to secure after the removal of a Christmas tree. The defendant admitted to acting negligently but contested the claim of gross negligence.

THE ISSUES

The court needed to decide whether the defendant's actions constituted gross negligence and whether the defendant could be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees. Additionally, the court had to assess the adequacy of the safety measures in place at the casino.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the actions of the defendant's employees and the safety protocols in place. It was determined that the defendant's failure to secure the area after the removal of the Christmas tree constituted a conscious disregard for the safety of the public, particularly children. The court emphasized that the presence of a live wire in a public area, especially near a water source, created a foreseeable risk of harm.

REMEDY

The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained by the minor child. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to cover the plaintiff's legal costs on a party and party scale C, including the costs of counsel.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established key legal principles regarding gross negligence, emphasizing that it involves a conscious and voluntary disregard for the need to use reasonable care, which can lead to foreseeable grave injury or harm. The court also highlighted the importance of the duty of care owed by establishments to ensure the safety of their premises, particularly in areas frequented by children.