The recent judgment in Bedir v Westdene Fruiterers provides valuable guidance on the extent of shopkeepers' duty of care towards customers and the obligations retail premises owners owe to patrons. It also serves as a reminder to customers to take extra care in rainy conditions, when surfaces are likely to be wet and slippery. The case concerned a customer who claimed damages for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell while exiting a shop via a descending ramp at its main entrance. It raised critical questions about compliance with safety standards and reasonable precautions expected in retail environments.
The plaintiff visited the defendant's store to purchase groceries at approximately 19h00 and during heavy rain. After completing her purchases, she proceeded to exit via the main entrance, carrying a small shopping bag, when she slipped on the wet ramp. The plaintiff testified that water on the ramp caused her to slip, with one foot initially slipping forward, and then both feet sliding down the slope, causing her to land on her back on the pavement below. She sustained serious injuries, including a fractured right leg below the knee, the severity of which only became apparent when pain intensified at around 04h00 the following morning.
The court conducted an inspection in loco, which revealed several critical features of the defendant's store. From the pavement in front of the doorway, a ramp or incline of approximately two metres led up to the entrance, with a surface of the same paving blocks as the pavement. The top portion of the ramp was covered by a carpet extending approximately three-quarters of a metre. Significantly, there were no handrails along the sides or on the ramp itself. While a solid roof covered approximately three-quarters of the ramp, the bottom section and sides remained open, allowing rain to wet the surface, including the carpeted area. The court also noted that the ramp appeared to have a moderately steep gradient.
The plaintiff's case was bolstered by expert evidence regarding the ramp's gradient and safety requirements. The civil engineer testified that, under SANS 400 D, the slope of a pedestrian ramp must have a minimum gradient of 1 to 8, meaning that one metre of vertical rise for every eight metres of horizontal distance, whereas the slope at the defendant's premises measured 1 to 6. The architect also confirmed that the ramp was steep and opined that handrails were required, testifying that handrails should be provided at every public entrance of this kind.
In his defence, the defendant's sole director presented evidence attempting to demonstrate that adequate precautions had been taken. He testified that the canopy or roof over the ramp had been in place since 2010, that he had conducted business at the same premises for 42 years, and that no one had fallen on the ramp in the past 25 years. He further stated that just under 2 000 customers visited the shop from Mondays to Fridays. In cross-examination, the director conceded that he had not perceived any risk from a slippery ramp, that the roof over the ramp was intended to keep the ramp dry. Crucially, he conceded that the defendant, as the shopkeeper, had to ensure the safety of customers.
In analysing the legal principles, the court confirmed that to establish liability, the plaintiff had to prove wrongfulness on the part of the defendant (which could arise from the breach of a duty of care), negligence, and the element of causation. Regarding negligence, the plaintiff had to prove on a balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen that their omission could cause injury and patrimonial loss to another, that such a person would have taken reasonable steps to prevent it, and that the defendant failed to take those steps.
The court held that the evidence of the two expert witnesses confirmed the ramp's slope exceeded the limits set by SANS, providing prima facie evidence of the defendant's negligence. The court found that the defendant should have ensured that the gradient was not too steep and, as a reasonable person would, recognised the need for handrails on a ramp of that nature. The court further held that pure logic dictates that any surface becomes more slippery when wet, and that the defendant should have taken steps to prevent the ramp from becoming wet and slippery in rainy conditions.
The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant acted wrongfully by breaching its duty of care towards customers, and more particularly the plaintiff, by negligently failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety on the wet ramp, which was steeper than the required specifications. This failure was found to be the direct cause of the incident and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
However, the judgment also addressed contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court found that, although she testified that she stepped and walked cautiously on the ramp, she was not cautious enough. The court held that she knew the surface was wet, there were no handrails, the ramp sloped moderately steeply downward, and she was wearing casual sandals that were, on a balance of probabilities, less stable than regular shoes. Her slip and fall showed that she did not act as a reasonable customer would, particularly given there was no evidence that any other customer had slipped and fallen on the wet ramp that day.
In apportioning liability, the court determined that the plaintiff must carry 30% of the blame for the incident, and the defendant 70%. Accordingly, the defendant was ordered to pay 70% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the injuries she sustained.
This judgment serves as an important reminder to retail property owners and managers that their duty of care extends beyond the shop interior. Non-compliance with SANS standards can constitute prima facie evidence of negligence, highlighting the need to review entrance ramps and accessibility features at commercial premises. The presence of a roof over the entrance was insufficient to discharge the duty of care; the installation of handrails and adherence to prescribed gradients are essential precautionary measures. The ruling also demonstrates that while customers also bear responsibility for exercising appropriate caution, particularly in adverse weather conditions, this does not absolve proprietors of their primary duty to maintain safe premises.
