Written by Dayna Arnoldi
Slip, Trip and Falls in South Africa – Understanding Liability, Damages and Your Rights to Compensation.
Slip, trip and fall incidents are among the most common causes for personal injury claims in South Africa. These incidents frequently occur in everyday environments such as shopping centres, restaurants, hotels, parking areas and public walkways where hazards such as wet floors, uneven paving, poor lighting, defective staircases or uncovered municipal infrastructure can cause serious injuries.
When such injuries occur, the law may hold businesses, property owners or municipalities liable where it has been proven they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.
This article explains when a slip, trip and fall incident may give rise to a legal claim and what injured persons need to prove to succeed in a claim for compensation for their injuries.
What is a Slip, Trip and Fall Claim?
A slip, trip and fall claim is a personal injury claim based on the law of delict, which governs liability for harm caused by the wrongful and negligent conduct of another. These claims arise when a person is injured due to unsafe / hazardous conditions on the property or infrastructure where the owner or person in control of the premises (“the responsible party”) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of persons lawfully on their premises.
Common examples include:
- Slipping on a wet or slippery floor in a retail store or restaurant.
- Tripping over uneven paving or damaged flooring.
- Falling in an uncovered manhole or damaged sidewalk.
- Falling in poorly lit parking areas or staircases.
- Slipping over an uneven slope at the entrance of a supermarket.
Although these examples are common, liability will always depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
Establishing Liability
In order to succeed with a claim of this nature, the injured person must prove the legal elements of a delict. These include:
- Conduct (Act or Omission):
The responsible party must have committed an act or an omission that caused the incident. In many slip, trip and fall cases, conduct occurs in the form of a failure (omission) to act, such as:
- Failing to timeously clean a spillage.
- Failing to repair defective flooring.
- Failing to display warning signs near hazards.
- Failing to maintain public infrastructure.
- Wrongfulness:
The conduct must be wrongful. This means that the responsible party has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm but failed to discharge such duty. Common legal duties include:
- Displaying adequate warning signs near hazardous conditions.
- Maintaining infrastructure that is easily accessible by the public.
- Repairing damaged surfaces or infrastructure.
- Ensuring the implementation of proper cleaning and inspection systems.
- Ensuring that areas used by the public have adequate lighting.
A responsible party’s breach of its duty will generally satisfy the element of wrongfulness.
- Fault (Negligence):
The injured person must then establish that the responsible party acted negligently. To prove negligence the reasonable person test is applied. In terms of this test, negligence will arise when:
- a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility of harm occurring; and
- taken steps to prevent against that possibility, such steps which the responsible party in question failed to take.
- Causation
The injured person must also prove that the negligent conduct was the factual and legal cause of the harm suffered. In other words, it must be shown that but for the hazardous condition and the responsible party’s failure to address it, harm would not have been suffered.
- Harm (Damages)
Finally, the injured person must prove that they suffered actual harm, in the form of physical or psychological injury, financial loss or both. Without proving harm, no compensation is recoverable.
Who Can Be Held Liable
South African courts have considered many slip, trip and fall claims particularly in relation to common areas that give rise to claims like shopping centres and public spaces. Below we consider legal principles consistently applied by the courts in these claims:
1. Shopping Mall Owners, Independent Contractors and Restaurants
In Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman[1] the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) considered whether a shopping mall owner was liable for the harm suffered, by a customer who slipped on a gel-like substance spilled on the floor. The court held that property owners and operators can be held liable for the harm caused by an independent contractor if they fail to ensure that the contractor implements and maintains reasonable systems of inspection and cleaning. This case highlights the need for shop owners and operators alike to implement systems that ensure that floor spillages are attended to within a reasonable period, failing which liability may be imputed for the harm suffered by a customer.
Similarly, in Cenprop Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Holtzhauzen[2], the SCA emphasised that property owners must take reasonable steps to address foreseeable risks, such as rainwater entering buildings and creating slippery surfaces. The SCA found the owner of the property liable on the grounds that it appointed an independent contractor with inadequate systems to manage foreseeable hazardous conditions, such as rainy conditions that resulted in trafficking-in of rainwater brought by shoppers which caused wet floors. The SCA also found the property owner liable on the basis that the tiles used in the mall, posed a significant danger when wet, thus requiring stringent measures to manage the wet conditions.
In Ngwenya vs Accelerate Property Fund[3], the court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge her evidentiary burden, as the evidence adduced regarding the damaged metal skirting related to its condition subsequent to the incident rather than at the time thereof. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove factual causation, as the plaintiff could not establish on a balance of probabilities that the skirting was in a dangerous state at the material time. The court further found that the defendant had satisfied the standard of the diligent paterfamilias by placing adequately sized disclaimer signs at an observable position within the immediate vicinity of the incident, affording the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to take cognisance thereof.
In South Africa, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (“the thing speaks for itself”) finds application in slip-and-fall cases. In Gailis v Woolworths and another[4], the court found that proof of the existence of a hazardous condition is fundamental and only once the plaintiff has established that the fall was caused by a proven hazard, will an inference be drawn.
In Morrison v MSA Devco[5], the court found that the plaintiff on the balance of probabilities, adduced sufficient evidence to prove 100% negligence on part of the defendant by demonstrating, through corroborated evidence, that no wet floor signs had been placed on the restaurant floor which would prima facie lead to the floor being damp as a result the absence of exercising the necessary cleaning protocols. The court held that the defendant’s attempt to rely on an indemnity disclaimer was unenforceable in the circumstances, as the existence of established cleaning protocols demonstrated that the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
Ngwenya demonstrates that a plaintiff who cannot establish factual causation will fail regardless of the existence of a potentially hazardous condition, however Gailis takes this a step further to confirm that a court cannot infer negligence without the plaintiff proving the existence of such hazardous condition while Morrison confirms that disclaimer signs will not shield a defendant where foreseeable harm arises from the defendant’s own operational protocols as its duty of care.
2. Residential Owners and Body Corporates
In Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty) Ltd[6] the court held that Newbee Investments owed Mr Swinburne a legal duty to ensure that the stairs were safe to use. Despite the lease agreement stipulating that the landlord would be indemnified of any harm caused by tenants of the property, the court held that legal convictions of the community (boni mores) demand that the failure to act under those circumstances, should be legally penalised. In addition to this, the court held that in terms of the CPA, particularly section 51(1)(c)(i) which prohibits contractual terms that purports to limit or exempt a supplier from being liable for any loss attributable to its gross negligence.
In Du Plooy v The Cascades Body Corporate and Another[7], the plaintiff slipped and fell onto slime and moss on the floor of a washing line area. The issues for determination by the court was whether the body corporate (which considered to be a landlord) had failed to discharge its duty of care to ensure that the washing line area was reasonably safe, both by virtue of its contractual relationship with the managing agent and by appointing the plaintiff as its cleaning and gardening contractor. The court in doing so held that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient proof that on the balance of probabilities the body corporate was in breach of its legal duty finding instead that the body corporate had taken reasonable steps to prevent harm by appointing a contractor specifically tasked with maintaining the area.
3. Municipal Owners
In Schaefer v City of Cape Town[8], the claimant who was walking along Victoria Road in Camps Bay when she tripped over a raised paving brick and sustained a serious knee injury sought to hold the municipality liable for injuries sustained as a result of harm suffered on or by the municipality’s property, the claimant must show that the defect posed a significant danger and that the municipality had actual or constructive knowledge of it. Once a municipality is aware of any hazardous condition, it has a duty to repair it or take steps to warn the public[9]It is important to note that claims against organs of state carry additional procedural requirements, including the obligation to give prior notice under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002. Claimants should obtain legal advice promptly to ensure compliance with these requirements.
The above underscores the importance of understanding how to hold a responsible party liable. A plaintiff must establish factual causation and breach of legal duty on a balance of probabilities, otherwise the claim may be fatal regardless of the existence of a potentially hazardous condition, where it attempts to evade liability by delegating its safety obligations to an independent contractor is not valid in law as one’s legal duty cannot be contracted away, and finally, disclaimer signs carrying indemnification clauses will not absolve a responsible party from harm where harm is reasonably foreseeable by the responsible party.
Side note: Contributory Negligence
A claimant’s own conduct may reduce their entitlement to compensation. Under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, where the claimant contributed to their own fall, for example, by being distracted, running, or wearing inappropriate footwear, the court may apportion damages between the parties accordingly. It is important to consider this from the outset of any claim.
What damages can an injured person claim?
If liability is established, an injured person may be entitled to compensation for a range of losses that may have or will be incurred following the incident. These damages include:
- General Damages
Also referred to as non-patrimonial loss, being the non-economic damages without a direct monetary value and include:
- Pain and suffering.
- Loss of amenities of life (loss of enjoyment).
- Emotional and psychological distress.
- Infringement of dignity or reputation.
- Past and Future Medical Expenses
One can claim for compensation of all medical costs arising from the injury sustained. This includes hospitalisation, surgery, physiotherapy, specialist consultations, as well as all medication purchased in respect of treatment of injuries sustained. Compensation for anticipated medical treatment may likewise be claimed, provided that it is supported by an expert opinion.
- Loss of Past and Future Earnings or loss of Earning Capacity
Where an injury is the cause of a claimant losing his/her ability to properly exercise his/her employment duties, whether temporarily or permanently, compensation for past earnings may be claimed for loss of income from the date of the incident right up until the last date of trial, as well as the projected loss of future earnings. A claim for loss of earning capacity can be made where the claimant has sustained a lasting disability as a result of the accident that adversely affects their ability to earn an income. This is especially (but not exclusively) so where a minor claimant has no established employment or earnings history from which a precise calculation of income loss can be made.
Actions to take following the incident
If you or someone you know has been injured in a slip, trip or fall incident, taking the right steps immediately after the event can significantly strengthen a potential claim. We recommend the following:
- Seek medical attention, immediately. Obtain a medical report and retain all records of treatment. Medical records are fundamental in proving the link between the nature and extent of your injuries and the incident.
- Report the incident. Notify the relevant property owner, business manager, or municipality of the incident as soon as possible.
- Preserve evidence. Take photographs and/or videos at the location of the incident, the hazardous condition that caused your fall, any warning signs (or lack thereof), and your injuries. If there are witnesses, obtain their contact details.
- Note the relevant details. Record the date, time, and precise location of the incident, the conditions at the time (e.g. wet floors, poor lighting), and what caused the fall.
- Retain all medical and incident related expenses. Keep records of all medical expenses, receipts, lost income and other costs incurred as a result of the injury.
- Act promptly and do not let your claim prescribe. All personal injury claims are subject to the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. Generally, your right to claim prescribes (becomes extinguished) three years from the date of the incident. It is important to seek legal advice promptly, to ensure that your claim does not prescribe.
- Consult a personal injury attorney. Given the complexity of establishing liability and quantifying damages, it is advisable to obtain specialist legal advice at the earliest opportunity.
Speak to Our Team
If you have been injured in a slip, trip or fall incident, our personal injury team can assist you in assessing your claim and taking the appropriate steps to protect your rights. Contact us for a confidential consultation.
[1] Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman 2009 (1) SA 265 (SCA).
[2] Cenprop Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Holtzhauzen (520/2021) [2022] ZASCA 183.
[3] Ngwenya vs Accelerate Property Fund (2022/13159) [2024] ZAGPJHC.
[4] Gailis v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd and Another (11651/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 579.
[5] Morrison v MSA Devco (Pty) Ltd (5229/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 21.
[6] Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 296.
[7] Du Plooy v The Cascades Body Corporate and Another (275/10) [2013] ZAWCHC 62.
[8] Schaefer v City of Cape Town (4204/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 46.
[9] Za v Smith (20134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 75.
