A slip and trip incident outside a Food Lover’s Market outlet in Bloemfontein in which a woman claimed R433 509 for the damages she had suffered following the incident, has seen the food outlet as well as the owner of the building where store is located at, vindicated.
The Bloemfontein High Court turned down the claim instituted by Eloréze Pieterse, who said she fell when visiting Food Lover’s Market situated at Showgate Centre in Bloemfontein.
She said she fell on the sidewalk or passageway leading to the entrance of Food Lover’s Market. She sustained injuries and suffered damages as a result of the incident.
Pieterse instituted her claim both against Food Lover’s Market and the trustees of the Michael Family Trust, which owned the building premises where the shop is located.
Pieterse claimed that she fell as a result of uneven and unsafe paving on the sidewalk or passageway directly in front of Food Lover’s Market. She particularly identified an uneven piece of paving as being “the culprit”.
She based her claim on the argument that Food Lover’s Market and the trust had a legal duty to ensure that the exterior sidewalks, walkways, passageways and entrance ways leading to and providing access to the business and the premises were properly maintained and were in a safe condition.
According to her they have a legal duty to warn the public in general, including patrons of any dangerous situation which might exist in respect of the exterior of the premises.
Food Lover’s Market’s defence is essentially that it only has a duty to ensure that the interior of the premises occupied by it are reasonably safe for members of the public.
In terms of the lease agreement with the trust, Food Lover’s Market said it, as the lessor, is responsible and has the exclusive control of the common areas outside the outlet.
Food Lover’s Market specifically pleaded that the area where the incident occurred is outside its premises and it was not in control of the area.
The trust meanwhile relied on a “disclaimer notice” which it said was prominent at the entrances to the premises and/or the exterior of the building, which were visible to the public at It said it is thus exempted from any claim of whatsoever nature in respect of loss, damage, expense, injury or death.
It further argued that it at all times ensured that the premises was safe and the trust blamed Pieterse for the fall, stating that she did not look where she was walking.
Pieterse, who was in her 50s during the incident, testified that she and her husband went to the shopping centre on the morning of April 30, 2018.
Her husband remained in the parked vehicle and she walked to Food Lover’s Market. Pieterse said she wasn't in a hurry. She had previously visited this particular branch of Food Lover’s Market but is not a regular customer here.
She walked along the paved parking lot to the entrance of Food Lover’s Market. There is no curb stone in front of the entrance to Food Lover’s Market. A low concrete ramp leads to the entrance of Food Lover’s Market.
Pietsrse said after she stepped up the curb stone onto the walkway, she stumbled as a result of her foot getting stuck and she fell forward. She testified that she was wearing flat, rubber soled shoes at the time.
The security guard who was standing next to the entrance of Food Lover’s Market came to assist her and helped her to her feet.
At that stage she had no idea what had caused her to fall but she assumed that the front of her shoe had caught or hooked onto something. The plaintiff testified that she has no problems with her eyesight or her balance. She is not overweight and she often walks on uneven terrain on the farm and on hikes and has never fallen before.
According to her she sustained injuries to her ribs, knees, left shoulder and her back due to the fall.
Pieterse said she and her husband returned to the area later that day to see exactly why she had fallen. According to her she saw a lifted paving stone and she identified it as the “culprit” that caused her to fall.
Regarding the accusation that she did not look where she was walking, Pieterse told the court that this accusation is “pure nonsense.”
The court turned down her claim on various grounds, including that the disclaimer notice was clear for all to see. It was also found that Pietserse did not prove the cause and location of her fall, and she did not satisfy the requirement of negligence of either of the defendants.
The court said she was clearly negligent in her own version.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za