Woman fails in bid to sue top retailer

A SLIP-and-trip incident outside a Food Lover’s Market outlet in Bloemfontein, for 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 the store is located, vindicated.

The Bloemfontein High Court turned down the claim instituted by Eloréze Pieterse, who said she fell when visiting the Food Lover’s Market 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 accident.

Pieterse instituted her claim 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 had 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 was, essentially, that it only had a duty to ensure that the interior of the premises occupied by it was 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, was responsible and had 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. It said it was thus exempted from any claim of whatever nature in respect of loss, damage, expense, injury or death.

The trust further argued that it at all times ensured that the premises was safe and blamed Pieterse for the fall, stating that she did not look where she was going.

Pieterse, who was in her 50s at the time, testified that she and her husband went to the shopping centre on the morning of April 30, 2018.

Her husband remained in their parked vehicle and she walked to Food Lover’s Market along the paved parking lot to the entrance. After she stepped up the kerb 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.

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”.

The court, however, 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.