Woman's claim against Stellenbosch restaurant fails after ignoring signage

A woman's legal battle for compensation has ended in defeat after the Western Cape High Court dismissed her claim against a Stellenbosch restaurant.

The patron, who suffered serious injuries after tripping and falling on a dark pathway while leaving a work year-end function, had sought damages from the establishment.

She contended that the restaurant was responsible for her injuries due to inadequate safety measures, but the court ultimately ruled against her claim.

At the time of the incident, the restaurant had been leasing a portion of the establishment from Hidden Valley Wines, situated on the Hidden Valley Estate.

She suffered injuries as a result of that fall and was described as a right ankle trimalleolar fracture - a dislocation involving the articular surface of the ankle joint.

The woman fell while walking to her and her husband’s parked vehicle in the parking area; however, it was established that she had entered the establishment via an entrance used for the wine tasting venue instead of the demarcated entrance for the restaurant venue.

The woman complained that the defendants failed to make the walkway safe for use, together with the curved steps, because of a lack of illumination and the absence of a handrail, which created a hidden trap.

In court proceedings, under cross-examination, it was conceded that the woman, despite having previously visited the same venue, overlooked the signboards guiding her to the designated entrance to the restaurant.

“It is this court’s view, therefore, that the testimony of the expert witnesses was thus unhelpful, especially when compared against direct evidence of the witnesses, the plaintiff, and her husband in assisting this court to understand why the plaintiff and her husband elected to ignore the signboards directing them to the correct parking area. 

“It is quite evident that if the plaintiff and her husband had followed the road signs or signboards correctly, they would have avoided the incident leading to the plaintiff’s fracture, as the correct entrance had no stairs from the parking,” court documents read.

The private company further averred that when entering and leaving premises on the pathway where the alleged incident occurred, there was a disclaimer of liability signboard. 

The signboard read: “This is a working farm and inherent risks exist on this property. All persons entering these premises do so entirely at their own risk. The owner, employees, agents, representatives, and management of these premises shall not be liable for any damage, loss, theft, injury, accident, or death suffered by any person howsoever caused.”

Due to this, the landlord was entitled to assume that the woman, walking past the disclaimer notice and continuing further, assented to the terms of the disclaimer notice. 

That, therefore, she was bound by the terms of the disclaimer notice, having consented to them based on quasi-mutual assent.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus