Brief Summary

Delict — Negligence — Slip and fall — Plaintiff claiming damages for injuries sustained after slipping on a wet ramp at the defendant's store — Court finding that the defendant failed to ensure the safety of customers by not maintaining the ramp and providing adequate warnings — Defendant found liable for 70% of the damages due to negligence in maintaining a safe environment.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment

1. Introduction

The matter concerned a delictual damages claim arising from a slip-and-fall incident at the defendant’s retail premises. The plaintiff, Bibi Bedir, alleged that she sustained injuries when she slipped while exiting the defendant’s shop using a descending entrance ramp. The defendant, Westdene Fruiterers, resisted liability and pleaded, in the alternative, that the plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to the incident.

Procedurally, the parties agreed to a separation of issues between liability and quantum. An order was granted under rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, with the result that the trial proceeded only on the merits (liability), leaving quantum to be determined later by agreement or further proceedings. The merits were adjudicated with reference to paragraphs 1 to 5 of the particulars of claim, which framed the negligence allegations.

The dispute’s general subject matter was whether a shopkeeper, as occupier/controller of premises open to the public, breached a duty of care to customers by failing to ensure that an entrance ramp was safe, including whether alleged deficiencies (such as slope, wetness, lack of handrails, lack of warnings, and absence of anti-slip measures) were causally linked to the plaintiff’s fall, and whether any contributory negligence should reduce the defendant’s liability.

2. Material Facts

It was common cause that on 14 April 2019 the plaintiff attended the defendant’s store as a customer and that she fell while exiting the premises via the ramp at the main entrance, sustaining injuries for which she claimed damages. The matter proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff alleged the fall resulted from the defendant’s negligent failure to make the ramp safe, while the defendant denied negligence and pleaded contributory negligence in the alternative.

At the commencement of the hearing, the court conducted an inspection in loco. The court observed that from the pavement to the shop doorway there was a ramp of about two metres. The ramp surface comprised paving blocks similar to those on the adjacent pavement. The upper portion of the ramp was covered by a carpet across its width, covering approximately three quarters of a metre. The court noted there were no handrails on or alongside the ramp. There was a solid roof covering about three quarters of the ramp, with the bottom part open, and the sides were open such that rain from the sides could wet the ramp surface. The court recorded that the plaintiff indicated she slipped as she stepped off the carpet, still under the roof, and that she ultimately fell on the pavement some distance beyond the slip point. The court also observed that the ramp’s gradient appeared moderately steep.

The plaintiff testified that it was about 19h00 and raining heavily when she exited the shop. She stated she was carrying a single small shopping bag, walked out onto the ramp, and slipped due to water on the ramp. She said her foot slipped forward, she attempted to balance, and then both feet slipped down the slope. She stated there were no warning signs and no handrails. The court accepted her evidence on the incident’s general occurrence and the conditions at the time, finding no reason to doubt her reliability and accepting that she slipped on the wet, sloping ramp after exiting the doorway.

The parties disputed aspects of the ramp’s covering on the day. The plaintiff stated that at the time there was no mat or carpet on the ramp and that a canvas canopy existed then, narrower than the later roof. The defendant’s witness testified that the roof had been present since 2010 and was never canvas. The court regarded the precise form of the canopy as not determinative, given its acceptance of the critical fact that the ramp surface was wet at the time of the incident.

Expert evidence was led on the ramp’s gradient. The plaintiff’s civil engineer and architect witnesses measured the ramp and testified that its gradient was 1:6, whereas the relevant requirement under SANS 400 D was 1:8 for a pedestrian ramp. The court accepted that the ramp was steeper than permitted under that standard. Expert opinions were also given that handrails were necessary at a ramp of that nature.

Evidence was led about slipperiness testing. One plaintiff witness conducted a practical “wetting” exercise and reported the ramp to be slippery when wet. However, the court found this methodology unconvincing, noting evidence that slip resistance testing of that kind could only properly be done in a laboratory. Despite this, the court reasoned from the accepted conditions that heavy rain would make a surface more slippery and accepted that the ramp was wet and that the rain aggravated the risk.

The defendant’s witness also testified that over many years of trading at the premises there had been no prior falls on the ramp, and he asserted (in re-examination) that the defendant was only responsible for customer safety inside the shop. The court rejected that assertion as unsupported and inconsistent with concessions that the defendant, as shopkeeper, bore responsibility to ensure customer safety.

On the plaintiff’s conduct, the court found that she knew it was raining, knew the surface was wet, knew there were no handrails, knew the ramp sloped downward and was moderately steep, and was wearing casual sandals. Although she testified she walked cautiously, the court held she was not cautious enough and that her conduct contributed to the fall.

3. Legal Issues

The central questions were whether the plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s conduct (primarily omissions) was wrongful in the sense of a breach of a duty of care owed to customers using the entrance ramp, and whether the defendant was negligent in failing to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm.

A further central issue was causation, namely whether the negligent omissions relied upon (including the ramp’s steep gradient and the absence of safety features) were a direct cause of the plaintiff’s slipping and resultant injuries, as the court framed it.

The dispute required determination of the application of legal standards to facts. The court had to evaluate factual disputes about conditions at the entrance and the plaintiff’s manner of exiting, assess the weight of expert evidence (particularly as to the ramp gradient and the reliability of slip-testing evidence), and then apply established delictual principles for wrongfulness, negligence, and causation.

Finally, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and if so, the appropriate apportionment of fault between the parties, which entailed an evaluative judgment based on the proven circumstances.

4. Court’s Reasoning

The court approached the matter on the footing that the plaintiff bore the onus to prove the defendant’s wrongfulness, negligence, and causation. In relation to negligence, the court applied the conventional test that asks whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have foreseen harm and would have taken reasonable steps to prevent it, and whether the defendant failed to take such steps. The court expressly referenced Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) in articulating this framework.

Because the plaintiff was effectively the only witness to the incident’s immediate circumstances, the court considered the approach to single-witness testimony in civil matters, particularly where the witness is a party. It held that such evidence must be credible and satisfy the court, on the probabilities, that it is truthful. The court referenced Daniels v General Accident Insurance Co. Ltd 1992 (1) SA 757 (C) at 759–760 and found the plaintiff to be an honest and reliable witness. On that basis, it accepted that she slipped on the wet ramp while exiting, and it accepted related contextual facts such as heavy rain, the absence of warning signs, and the absence of handrails.

A significant component of the court’s negligence finding was grounded in the expert evidence regarding the ramp’s non-compliant gradient. Two experts testified that the ramp’s slope was 1:6, exceeding the SANS 400 D requirement of 1:8 for a pedestrian ramp. The court treated this non-compliance as prima facie evidence of negligence, reasoning that the defendant ought to have ensured that the ramp was not too steep. The court also accepted expert opinion that handrails were needed on a ramp of this nature and held that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have appreciated this.

On the allegation that the ramp surface was unreasonably slippery, the court was critical of the “bucket of water” testing method, describing it as unconvincing once it emerged that such slip resistance tests could properly be conducted only in a laboratory. Nonetheless, the court reasoned that “pure logic” indicates that a surface becomes more slippery when heavy rain wets it. In the court’s assessment, the defendant should have taken steps to ensure that the ramp did not become wet and slippery in the rain. The court considered the exact nature of the canopy on the day to be of limited relevance in light of its finding that the surface was wet at the time of the fall.

Having accepted that the ramp was wet, sloped, and steeper than the standard contemplated, and that there were no handrails, the court concluded that the plaintiff proved wrongfulness through a breach of the defendant’s duty of care towards customers. It found that the defendant negligently failed to take reasonable steps to ensure safety on the wet ramp, and it held that this failure was the direct cause of the incident and the injuries.

The court rejected the defendant’s witness’s suggestion that the defendant’s safety responsibility only arose once customers were inside the shop. It found that this contention was unsupported and was undermined by concessions that the defendant, as shopkeeper, had to ensure customer safety.

On contributory negligence, the court weighed the plaintiff’s own knowledge and conduct. It emphasised that she knew it was raining and that the ramp was wet, knew there were no handrails, appreciated the ramp’s downward slope, and wore casual sandals that were, on the probabilities, less stable than normal shoes. The court inferred from the fact of the fall (and the absence of evidence that other customers fell that day) that she failed to act as a reasonable customer would have acted in those conditions. Exercising its evaluative judgment, it apportioned fault at 70% to the defendant and 30% to the plaintiff.

Regarding costs, the court found no basis to depart from the principle that costs follow the result on the merits component. However, it distinguished between the plaintiff’s expert witnesses. It held that the qualifying and reservation costs of two experts should be allowed, but not those of Mr De Bruyn, whose method of testing slipperiness was found to lack scientific basis.

5. Outcome and Relief

The court found the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s damages subject to apportionment for contributory negligence. It ordered the defendant to pay 70% of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages arising from the injuries sustained in the fall on 14 April 2019.

On costs, the court ordered the defendant to pay 70% of the plaintiff’s costs of the trial on the merits component on the party and party scale. The costs order expressly included the qualifying and reservation costs of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses Mr Akram Gool and Mrs Marike Botha, and included the fees of counsel on scale B.

Cases Cited

Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A)

Daniels v General Accident Insurance Co. Ltd 1992 (1) SA 757 (C) at 759–760

Legislation Cited

No legislation was cited in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

Uniform Rules of Court, rule 33(4)

Held

The court held that the plaintiff proved that the defendant, as shopkeeper, breached its duty of care by negligently failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of customers using the entrance ramp, particularly where the ramp’s gradient exceeded the requirement in SANS 400 D and where safety features such as handrails were absent. The court held that these failures caused the plaintiff’s fall and injuries.

The court further held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because she proceeded down a wet, moderately steep ramp without handrails while wearing casual sandals, and she did not exercise sufficient caution in the prevailing conditions. Fault was apportioned at 70% to the defendant and 30% to the plaintiff, with corresponding apportionment of damages and costs.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment applied the principle that a plaintiff claiming delictual damages must prove wrongfulness, negligence, and causation on a balance of probabilities, and that negligence is assessed by reference to reasonable foreseeability of harm and reasonable preventative steps, as articulated in Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A).

The judgment applied the approach that a single witness in a civil case, particularly where the witness is a party, must be credible such that uncorroborated evidence satisfies the court on the probabilities that it is true, with reference to Daniels v General Accident Insurance Co. Ltd 1992 (1) SA 757 (C) at 759–760.

The judgment treated non-compliance with an applicable South African National Standard concerning ramp gradient (SANS 400 D) as prima facie evidence supporting a finding of negligence in the circumstances of a public entrance ramp used by customers.

The judgment illustrates that even where expert evidence on a technical aspect (such as slip resistance testing) is rejected as methodologically unsound, the court may still draw inferences from accepted facts and ordinary reasoning about risk in wet conditions, provided the core facts are proven.

The judgment applied the principle that where a plaintiff’s own lack of reasonable care contributes to the harm, a finding of contributory negligence may be made and responsibility may be apportioned by evaluative assessment, with damages and costs adjusted to reflect the apportionment ordered.

Bedir v Westdene Fruiterers (3748/2020) [2026] ZAFSHC 21 (22 January 2026)