Pick n Pay Liable for Damages After Chester Williams' Widow Slipped in Store
Pick n Pay has been held liable for damages claimed by Maria Williams, the widow of the late Springbok winger Chester Williams, after she slipped and fell in one of their Cape Town stores in 2017. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) effectively dismissed the retailer's argument that it was not responsible for the injuries sustained by Williams.
The incident occurred on 13 November 2017, while Williams was shopping at the Pick n Pay store in N1 City Mall. According to court papers, Williams was at the till when she remembered she needed to buy an electric fly repellent. As she briskly walked down the aisle to retrieve one, she slipped on an oily-orange substance on the floor. Her "feet shot out ahead of her, and she landed on her left side," resulting in injuries to her left hip and shoulder joint. Williams was in "quite considerable discomfort and unable to get back on her feet immediately" and was eventually assisted into a wheelchair by staff before being taken to the nearby N1 City Hospital for medical attention.
Following the incident, Williams lodged a claim in 2019 seeking damages in excess of R600,000. This included a R33,000 medical bill, an anticipated R100,000 for further medical treatment, and R100,000 for loss of earnings. While Williams was unavailable for comment, her lawyer, Anthony Batchelor, said she was "relieved that this matter is finally coming to an end" and confirmed that further litigation will follow to determine the exact amount of her claim.
In its defence, Pick n Pay argued that the negligence lay with its third-party cleaning service, Bluedot. However, the Western Cape High Court initially found in favour of Williams, establishing a prima facie case of negligence against Pick n Pay. The High Court also ruled that Pick n Pay was entitled to a declaratory order confirming Bluedot's liability to indemnify the retailer under a previous agreement.
The High Court emphasised that appointing an independent contractor did not absolve Pick n Pay of its responsibility to ensure customer safety. The judgment stated, "The facts show that Bluedot did not clean up the spillage which caused the plaintiff’s fall for an appreciable period of time and had Pick n Pay complied with its legal duty of care towards its customers, its staff would have detected the spillage, alerted the cleaners to the potential hazard and seen to it that they cleaned up the mess before the plaintiff trod in it."
Pick n Pay appealed this decision in the SCA, but Acting Judge Daniel Dlodlo dismissed the appeal with costs. Dlodlo held that Williams had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Pick n Pay was negligent in failing to uphold its duty of care towards her while she was lawfully present on its premises. "The presence of the hazardous substance, coupled with the absence of any warning or remedial action, constituted negligence," Dlodlo stated. News24 had been unable to reach Pick ’n Pay for comment at the time of publication.
The SCA determined that a reasonable shop owner would foresee the risk of spillages in a busy supermarket and would implement and properly supervise an effective system to detect and remedy such hazards. "While Pick n Pay had engaged a cleaning contractor, it failed to exercise adequate oversight over the contractor’s performance and relied on an internal monitoring system that was shown to be ineffective. This court emphasised that although the performance of cleaning duties may be delegated, the responsibility to ensure that reasonable care is taken towards members of the public remains with the store owner," said Dlodlo.
Dlodlo also criticised the retailer for appealing the High Court order, stating that "that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy intended to prevent a grave failure of justice, not to provide a further opportunity to reargue the merits of a case". He added, "Pick n Pay failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances or misdirections that would justify reconsideration, and the application amounted to no more than an attempt to relitigate issues already determined."
The court held Pick n Pay liable for 100% of the damages Williams might prove, which include damages for pain and suffering, as well as past and future medical expenses. The exact amount Williams claimed has not yet been quantified. This ruling underscores the responsibility of businesses to maintain a safe environment for their customers and highlights the potential consequences of failing to do so.
Follow Us on Twitter
