A Stellenbosch wine bar has won an appeal after a customer who swallowed a needle-like object in a hamburger was ordered to pay the restaurant’s legal costs.
The Western Cape High Court, sitting as a full bench, overturned an earlier ruling that had found Beyerskloof Wine Bar liable for injuries suffered by Maxine Williams during the October 2020 incident.
Judges Phillipa Van Zyl, André le Grange and Dèidre Kusevitsky found that Williams had not provided enough evidence to prove that the restaurant had been negligent.
The appeal court dismissed her claim and ordered her to pay Beyerskloof’s legal costs for the original trial, two applications for leave to appeal and the full appeal.
The incident happened on 3 October 2020 when Williams and her husband visited Beyerskloof Wine Bar in Stellenbosch. The couple ordered a bottle of wine, water, a hamburger and side dishes for each of them.
Williams was halfway through her meal when she experienced discomfort in her throat. She believed something had become lodged there and tried to swallow it, but struggled.
“The food was served, and they both continued to indulge. half-way through her meal, she experienced a sensation of discomfort, as though something was lodged in her throat. She immediately tried to get it down but struggled profusely.”
She went to the restroom while coughing and tried to remove the object by putting her finger into her throat. When she saw blood in the basin, she began to cry and panicked.
“However, upon noticing some blood in the bathroom basin, she began to cry. This all happened during the Covid-19 period, and people started looking at her in a strange manner.”
Williams was unable to remove the object. She told her husband that she wanted to leave, and the couple settled their bill before travelling to the emergency rooms at Stellenbosch Mediclinic.
Doctors admitted her immediately and X-rays revealed a needle-like object lodged in her throat. An ear, nose and throat specialist tried to remove it manually but was unsuccessful.
Williams could not undergo an operation that evening because she had eaten food and drunk wine. She was kept in hospital overnight and monitored.
After seven hours, doctors attempted an operation to remove the object, but the procedure was unsuccessful. Williams remained in hospital for five days while doctors took X-rays twice a day to track the object’s position and gave her medication to help it pass through her body.
She was discharged after the object was no longer visible on the X-rays.
Williams later took Beyerskloof Wine Bar to court. The initial trial focused on whether the restaurant was legally responsible for her injuries, with the question of damages to be dealt with separately.
In May 2025, the trial court found in Williams’s favour and held the restaurant liable. That court relied on the legal principle known as res ipsa loquitur, which means “the thing speaks for itself”. The principle can allow a court to infer negligence from the circumstances of an incident when direct evidence is limited.
The trial court reasoned that a needle-like object in a hamburger indicated that the restaurant had failed to serve safe food. It also found that the restaurant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for how the object entered the burger.
Beyerskloof appealed the finding. The full bench of the Western Cape High Court disagreed with the original ruling and said the legal principle had been applied incorrectly.
The appeal court found that Williams still carried the responsibility of proving negligence. The fact that an alarming incident had happened was not enough, on its own, to prove that the restaurant had failed to take reasonable precautions.
“The maxim res ipsa loquitur… should have stayed in the wings,” the court said bluntly.
The judges found that the court could not use the principle to fill gaps in Williams’s evidence or shift the burden of proof to the restaurant.
“The trial court could not rely merely on the maxim to fill in the gaps in the plaintiff’s evidence,” the appeal judgment said.
The court noted that the exact nature of the object had not been established in the record. There was also no precise description of it and no medical evidence was furnished to identify the object or explain its route through Williams’s body.
Williams said she was certain that the object came from the hamburger because that was what she had been eating when she felt it lodge in her throat. However, she could not establish whether it had been in the bun, patty or garnish, or explain how it had entered the food.
The appeal court also considered the restaurant’s food-safety procedures. Beyerskloof said food quality was checked when ingredients were delivered. The restaurant also used plastic brushes rather than metal brushes to baste and clean the grill.
The judges found that the restaurant had general health and safety procedures and that its staff had been trained in them. The restaurant’s general manager also testified that it had never experienced a similar incident.
The appeal court held that Williams had not shown that the presence of an unidentified foreign object in one of the hamburger’s ingredients was reasonably foreseeable to the restaurant. Without knowing how the object entered the food, the judges said, the court could not conclude that Beyerskloof had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident.
The judgment also rejected the idea that a restaurant should automatically be held responsible whenever a customer is injured by an object in food. South African law does not impose strict liability in such circumstances. A claimant must still prove the legal requirements for a damages claim, including negligence and a connection between the conduct and the injury.
The court said that if the trial court had effectively treated Beyerskloof as automatically liable, it had made an error.
The appeal was upheld, the earlier order was set aside and Williams’s claim was dismissed. The court ordered her to pay the restaurant’s legal costs across the trial, the applications for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.
The ruling ended a legal dispute that began after Williams was hospitalised for five days following the frightening incident at the Stellenbosch wine bar.
Beyerskloof Wine Bar and Williams’s attorneys were approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.