- Ursula Marlene Gordon fractured her left ankle after falling on loose sand and uneven ground at a public parking area outside Surfside Pavilion.
- The High Court found Civils 2000 failed to warn the public about a foreseeable hazard and remained responsible for the site.
- The court found Gordon equally responsible for her injury, making the contractor liable for 50% of her proven damages.
Ursula Marlene Gordon succeeded in holding Civils 2000 (Pty) Ltd accountable for injuries she suffered after falling at a hazardous construction area outside Surfside Pavilion in Strand.
However, the High Court in the Western Cape ruled that Gordon’s own actions contributed equally to the incident, leaving Civils 2000 liable for only 50% of her proven damages.
Gordon was attending her sister-in-law’s 60th birthday celebration on the evening of 13 August 2016 when she crossed a public parking area near Surfside Pavilion. As the occasion was formal, she wore high heels. At dusk, she stepped onto soft sand covering an uneven surface, lost her footing, and fell, fracturing her left ankle.
The contractor remained responsible for the site
The central dispute was whether Civils 2000 still controlled the area where Gordon fell. The company claimed it had finished its work months earlier and had informally handed the site back to the municipality.
Evidence showed that Civils 2000 excavated a trench in the parking area, installed a pipeline, backfilled the trench with sand, and compacted it. The area was left exposed for months, waiting for another contractor to apply tar surfacing, a job that was never done. Windy weather in Strand made things worse by loosening the compacted sand, leaving the surface uneven and unstable.
The company’s own actions worked against it. Even after the work was supposedly complete, its safety officer continued to inspect and photograph the site. Civils 2000 also returned from time to time to perform maintenance when asked.
Judge TJ Mgengwana commented, “The only inference the court can draw from this conduct is that the defendant still considered itself responsible for the well-being of the site.”
On that basis, the court found that Civils 2000 remained in control of the area and owed members of the public a duty to make it safe or clearly warn of the danger.
Failure to warn and Gordon’s own negligence
The court found that loose sand on an uneven surface was a foreseeable hazard for pedestrians, yet the area was neither cordoned off nor marked with warning signs.
Judge Mgengwana said, “The defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff that the area she was walking on had an uneven surface and loose sand, which could injure her, by putting up the necessary signage if the area was not cordoned off. The defendant failed in this duty.”
He added, “The Defendant was aware of the potential danger from the loose sand and uneven surface at the site, and it also foresaw that this hazard could injure someone.”
But the court also found that Gordon did not take reasonable care for her own safety. She admitted she immediately recognised the area as a construction site, chose to walk across it in high heels, and later conceded that she may not have paid proper attention because she was focused on reaching the venue.
Judge Mgengwana said, “She failed to prevent injury to herself when, by exercising reasonable care, she could and should have done so.”
The court concluded that both parties were equally to blame. Civils 2000 was ordered to compensate Gordon for 50% of her proven damages and to pay the legal costs related to the liability stage of the case.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
