Watch your step: Court rules claimant's own negligence contributed to injuries

Image source: rawpixel.com from Freepik

The plaintiff, an 80-year-old man, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured landing at the police station. He claimed that police officers, acting within the scope of their employment, failed to ensure the premises were safe for public use.

The court examined whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether this duty was breached. It was established that the defendant had a legal duty to ensure the safety of the premises for public use.

The plaintiff testified that a police officer directed him to wash his hands at a tap located outside the police station. As he followed these directions, he fell from an unsecured landing, sustaining injuries.

Public liability vs personal negligence: Judgment a warning against opportunistic litigation

Mtho Maphumulo  5 Dec 2024

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's injuries were from his own negligence, claiming he jumped from the landing. However, the plaintiff's version was supported by an expert witness testimony, which confirmed that his injuries were consistent with a fall rather than a jump.

The defendant further contended that the plaintiff was negligent for not using the steps provided and failing to look where he was going. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to his injuries and to what extent.

Contributory negligence

The court found that while the defendant was negligent in failing to secure the landing or provide adequate warnings, the plaintiff also had a duty to take reasonable care for his own safety. His failure to look where he was going was deemed contributory negligence. The High Court found the Minister of Police liable for 80% of the plaintiff's proven damages, with the plaintiff deemed 20% contributorily negligent for his injuries.

The absence of a railing and warning signs on the landing constituted a breach of the defendant’s duty of care. The court held that this negligence was a direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Disclaimer vs liability claim: Court rules on school's duty of care

Emma Meyer and Pierre Le Roux  20 Aug 2024

The court also found that despite being directed to the tap, the plaintiff should have exercised caution and looked where he was going. His failure to do so contributed to the accident, and he was held 20% responsible for his injuries.

This judgment provides insight into the legal principles governing the duty of care, negligence, and contributory negligence. It serves as a reminder of key considerations in public liability claims and the factors that the courts assess when apportioning liability. Key takeaways include:

1. Entities must conduct thorough risk assessments and implement safety measures to prevent accidents.
   
2. Clear signage and warnings, as well as adequate safety features such as railings, are essential to mitigate liability.
   
3. When evaluating personal injury claims, both the entity's and the claimant's actions should be considered to determine the extent of liability and contributory negligence.