While the City of Cape Town has a duty to offer safe infrastructure, it cannot guarantee absolute safety, particularly when pedestrian awareness also plays a role in avoiding minor hazards.
This is according to the Western Cape High Court, which ruled that Magdalena Maria Schaefer had not successfully proven that the City was negligent in failing to act upon a defect that was minor and ostensibly not hazardous.
Schaefer instituted action against the City of Cape Town, claiming damages. She alleged that on 27 October 2017 she sustained injuries to her knee due to a fall caused by her tripping on an uneven surface of the sidewalk along Victoria Road in Camps Bay, Cape Town.
She further alleged that since the sidewalk was uneven on its surface it was unsafe and posed a danger to pedestrians, the City was in control of the sidewalk in Victoria Road and therefore responsible for the proper construction, maintenance, repair and upkeep thereof. She also alleged that the City, including its employees and officials, knew or should have known that the uneven surface of the sidewalk could cause pedestrians to trip, fall and injure themselves.
Furthermore, in support of holding the City liable it was pleaded that it owed Schaefer, as a member of the public, a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the surface of the sidewalk was safe and free of hazards. In addition, it was pleaded that since the sidewalk was hazardous the City was required to erect warning signs to alert pedestrians of the hazard and also to implement measures to prevent trips and falls on the sidewalk.
The City disputed that the incident in fact occurred and that its employees acted negligently or within the scope of their employment. It also denied a legal duty toward Schaefer and alternatively pleaded that if such a duty existed, it had not been negligently breached. Furthermore, while the City did not dispute its general responsibility to ensure the safety of sidewalks or to erect warnings about potential hazards, it denied any negligence in the specific circumstances of the case.
Moreover, the City pleaded no knowledge by its employees or officials of the condition of the sidewalk or that they could reasonably have been aware of any defect or an uneven surface on the sidewalk at the time the incident occurred. It also maintained that its employees took reasonable steps to maintain the sidewalk and to make sure it was safe for pedestrians to use.
In the alternative the City pleaded contributory negligence, alleging that Schaefer failed to act as a reasonable pedestrian by not keeping a proper lookout, neglecting to take care of her own safety, and failing to avoid the incident despite being able to do so and that any damages should be apportioned between the parties. Schaefer's evidence was bolstered by the testimony of her friend, Daleen Botha, who was present during the incident and provided photographic evidence of her injuries.
However, Acting Justice A Montzinger found the City of Cape Town not liable for the injuries sustained by Schaefer. Central to the court's decision was the assessment of the five elements necessary to establish delictual liability: conduct, wrongfulness, fault (negligence), causation, and harm. The court found that Schaefer had failed to demonstrate the legal duty and negligence required to hold the City accountable.
Justice Montzinger detailed that the protruding brick did not pose a significant risk, and that the absence of prior complaints indicated that the City was unaware of the sidewalk's condition. He argued that penalising the municipality for the minor defect, which had not been reported, would impose an unreasonable burden and divert resources from more critical needs. The evidence indicated the City had embarked on proactive measures to maintain its infrastructure, a point underscored by testimony that the municipality had limited resources to patrol thousands of kilometres of sidewalks effectively.
#Conviction
