Firm can’t duck liability

SCA RULES ON DEATH: MARKETING PROJECT SCAFFOLDING COLLAPSE

Finding of negligence on part of Hirt & Carter at concert upheld by appeal court.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has shot down a bid by Hirt & Carter to overturn inquest findings implicating the advertising and marketing company in the death of a woman killed in a scaffolding collapse at a Cape Town concert in 2012.

Florentina Popa died after heavy wind blew over temporary scaffolding, which Hirt & Carter had been involved in putting up as part of a marketing project for Lucozade, at a concert at Cape Town Stadium on 7 November, 2012. At least 19 others were injured.

An inquest headed by magistrate Ingrid Arnste in 2017 found Hirt & Carter – together with the subcontractors Bothma Signs and Vertex Scaffolding – had been negligent and could be causally linked to Popa’s death.

Hirt & Carter tried to have the findings against it reviewed in the Western Cape High Court but was unsuccessful and so turned to the SCA. There too, though, its case has now been dismissed.

The appellate court handed down its ruling on Friday. Penned by Judge Sulet Potterill with four other appeal judges concurring, it detailed how Hirt & Carter was approached by Glaxosmithkline – which owns Lucozade – to assist with advertising at the concert and proposed two “towers” be erected and branding attached thereto.

The construction thereof, though, was subcontracted to signage company Bothma Signs and further to bespoke scaffolding company Vertex Scaffolding.

In the original proceedings, Arnste indicated it was “common cause that there had been no structural engineer sign-off and the towers had not been properly secured, causing them to dislodge and fall on concertgoers”.

She rejected Hirt & Carter’s efforts to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the subcontractors, though – as did the high court, which emphasised that the company had accepted liability for a safety compliance certificate and “was duty bound to ensure that the certificate in fact complied in form and substance with the requisite safety standards”.

In the SCA, Hirt & Carter argued Arnste had made a material error of law by finding the company had an obligation to supervise construction of the scaffolding and manage the safety aspects.

But Potterill on Friday said the inquest ruling was premised on a finding of negligence on the part of Hirt & Carter. “There is, in my view, no discernible material error of law by the magistrate of the kind on which a review might be founded. Indeed, I can find no error at all,” she said.