A trip to a restaurant to have a meal turned into a nightmare for a woman, who on her way through a shopping complex sustained serious injuries when she tripped and fell due to the uneven height between two sets of coloured paving.
Kawshlia Gajjar earlier turned to court to hold the owner of Sunridge Village shopping mall in Gqeberha liable for her damages. Her claim was based on allegations that the owner of the shopping mall did not properly maintain the premises.
The court ruled in her favour, but the owner of the property - Schol (corr) Property and Consulting - now appealed the ruling before the Eastern Cape High Court, sitting in Makhanda.
On the afternoon of April 9, 2021, Gajjar (the plaintiff) together with her daughter visited Sunridge Village shopping mall with a view to have dinner at San Fernando’s restaurant.
Upon their arrival at the mall, they parked their vehicle at the parking lot and proceeded to the entrance which was near the San Fernando’s restaurant on the side of Woolworths. Before going to the restaurant, they went to a shop to buy desserts which they would take home.
They then made their way to the restaurant and the plaintiff’s daughter was walking in front of her.
The walkway in the mall is partly covered and consists of two types of paving bricks. The uncovered part has been paved with charcoal grey pavers. There are also terracotta (red pavers) coloured paving bricks on the area under cover.
The red floor surface is elevated and the charcoal grey floor surface is a little bit lower. There is a white line that has been painted on the charcoal grey pavers at the edge of the raised level caused by the curb stone.
Whilst on their way to San Fernando’s restaurant, the plaintiff stumbled, tripped, and fell on the uneven floor. She was injured on her shoulder and subsequently underwent an operation in hospital.
The defendant said the reason for the uneven floors was for the management of water flow towards the intake grids for the stormwater that runs off from the grey area. The purpose of the white line was “to attract attention” of the raised level and the difference in level as you come from a lower level up to a higher level.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the demarcation by means of a white line constituted a sufficient warning of the potential hazard caused by the uneven floors. The court was told that the woman should have kept a proper lookout at where she was walking.
Judge Bantubonke Tokota, on appeal, asked the counsel for the defendant whether a white line is normally used to indicate a danger and he conceded that it is not normally used for this purpose.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the mall owner should have placed a warning sign there regarding the presence of the raised floor.
Judge Tokota said there is no doubt in this case that the reasonable possibility of a person tripping and falling as a result of the uneven floors was foreseeable. The defendant was obliged to take precautions to guard against that eventuality.
“Like anybody else who walks in a walkway where the general public not only has access but indeed is invited to enter, the plaintiff was entitled to expect that she would walk on it safely. The plaintiff was an elderly person visiting the mall for the first time,” the judge said in turning down the appeal.
The matter will return to court on a later date to determine the amount of damages payable to her.
WhatsApp your views on this story at 071 485 7995.
Pretoria News