An elderly Cape Town woman was dismissed in her slip-and-fall claim against Woolworths in the Western Cape High Court. The claim stemmed from an incident at the Woolworths in Constantia Village in April 2021, which resulted in serious injuries including a three-part left proximal humerus fracture, bruising, and emotional shock.

The woman alleged that the store was negligent and had failed in its legal duty to maintain a safe environment, specifically by failing to ensure floors were free of hazards or slippery substances, to clean spills promptly, and to display adequate warning signs.

The High Court, however, dismissed her claim, finding that the woman had failed to provide sufficient evidence that a wet, slippery, or otherwise hazardous substance was present on the floor at the time of her fall.

The complainant testified that she was walking three or four paces behind her husband, who was pushing a trolley, when her left foot suddenly slipped, causing her to fall onto her left arm and hit her head. 

She sustained a cut above her left eyebrow. A Woolworths employee arranged for a wheelchair, and the woman’s son later drove her to Constantiaberg Hospital, where x-rays confirmed the fracture.

Acting Judge E Jonker noted that during cross-examination, the woman admitted she had not looked down at the floor and could not identify any substance on which she allegedly slipped. 

“She conceded that she had not observed any moisture, water, or substance on the tiles before the fall,” the acting Judge noted. 

The husband said he did not witness his wife’s fall, stating he found her already lying on the floor when he turned around. He then testified that within approximately three seconds, he himself slipped and fell, landing partially across his wife’s left arm.

Woolworths admitted that the woman was in the store and fell, but denied that any wet or slippery substance was on the floor. The store pleaded that it took all reasonable steps to ensure clean floors, with its version being that the woman tripped over her own feet while pushing a trolley.

Another store employee testified he saw the woman fall while she was pushing a trolley and did not see any water, liquid, or other substance on the floor. The employee, who did not witness the fall, said when he asked the couple what happened, the husband responded with the single word  “trolley”.

Acting Judge Jonker found inconsistencies in the woman’s evidence, which was further contradicted by husband’s version. 

“(The husband’s) evidence was similarly problematic. His account of his own fall shifted from falling on top of the plaintiff (wife) to falling more to the side of her. When asked by the court whether he could have worsened her injuries. His description of how the plaintiff was assisted into the wheelchair changed repeatedly,” Jonker said. 

Conversely, the acting Judge found the evidence of the store employees to be credible, describing it as clear, direct, and unshaken in cross-examination.

“Viewing the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a wet, slippery, or hazardous substance on the floor at the time of her fall,” she said. The woman was ordered to pay the costs on scale B.

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link