In Morrison v MSA Devco (Pty) Ltd, the Western Cape High Court recently upheld a restaurant patron’s claim for damages after she slipped and fell on the establishment’s wet floor and sustained serious injuries in the absence of prominently displayed warning signs.
In February 2017, Morrison (‘the Plaintiff’) slipped and fell on a wet floor at a restaurant owned by MSA Devco (Pty) Ltd (‘the Defendant’) and suffered a serious knee injury. In instituting a claim for damages, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant owed her and other patrons a duty of care and negligently failed to ensure her safety by not maintaining a dry floor that was safe to walk on, omitting to cordon off the wet section, and failing to display caution signs indicating that the floor was wet.
Conversely, the Defendant contended that a disclaimer notice was placed at the restaurant’s entrance and warning signs were displayed around the section where the Plaintiff fell. In addition, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was negligent in that she failed to maintain a ‘proper lookout’, wore inappropriate footwear, and walked at an unreasonable speed. As such, the Defendant maintained that it had taken reasonable steps to safeguard patrons –through the display of sufficient cautionary instruments – and was thus not responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.
In analysing both parties’ evidence, including evidence from the Plaintiff’s witness and Defendant’s employees, the court concluded that there were no visible warning signs or cones at the entrance of the restaurant or around the section where the Plaintiff slipped and fell. Given the Defendant’s duty of care owed to patrons, it should have foreseen the possibility that someone may slip and fall on a wet floor and implemented appropriate measures to safeguard the Plaintiff – and other patrons – from potential injury. In this instance, the Defendant failed to follow its own cleaning protocols, which required regular monitoring and immediate rectification. On this basis, the court held that the Defendant negligently failed to implement reasonable measures to secure the wet section and provide sufficient warning, and was thus liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Crucially, the court noted that a disclaimer notice is not an ‘automatic legal shield’ that wholly protects businesses from liability for injuries suffered by members of the public. Instead, the presence of a disclaimer notice must be assessed in light of the establishment’s full safety management practices. To that end, the enforcement of an indemnity clause is contingent on the indemnifier taking reasonable steps to minimise the risk of the harm from which they seek to be indemnified.
The judgment highlights the critical need for businesses to display clear, easy-to-read, and prominent warning signs – and to implement and adhere to safety protocols – to reduce the risk of harm to members of the public and limit liability.
Seeking an experienced and efficient personal injury lawyer? Contact our experts at injuries@stbb.co.za.
