Shopping Centre Accident Claims in South Africa

Shopping centres and supermarkets welcome millions of customers every year. While most visits pass without incident, accidents do occur – and when they result from negligence, injured parties may be entitled to compensation.

Find out more below or jump to a section of interest:

• causes of supermarket and shopping centre injuries
• what constitutes “duty of care” and what counts as negligence
• recent South African legal cases and notable historical incidents
• relevance of disclaimer and indemnity notices
• steps to take if you’re injured at a shopping centre
• about claiming compensation (why, what and how).

Common causes of shopping centre accidents

Accidents in supermarkets and shopping centres happen more frequently than many realise. Some of the most common causes include:

• Slip, trip and fall incidents are by far the most frequent type of accident. These occur due to wet floors from cleaning or spillages, defective or uneven flooring, inadequate warning signs, poor lighting and obstructions in aisles such as pallets, boxes or merchandise.
• Structural failures can cause catastrophic injuries. Roof collapses during storms, falling ceiling tiles or fixtures, glass panels breaking from skylights or doors and faulty construction work have all led to serious claims.
• Equipment malfunctions pose significant risks. Malfunctioning escalators or lifts, faulty automatic doors, damaged shopping trolleys and improperly maintained facilities can all cause injury.
• Falling objects are another common hazard. Heavy items falling from high shelves, improperly stacked merchandise, and items protruding from displays can strike customers without warning.
• Fire and explosion incidents, though less common, can result in severe injuries. Gas explosions in restaurants, electrical fires, and inadequate fire safety measures have all been the subject of legal claims.

Understanding “duty of care”

It’s a common misconception that if you’re injured in a shopping centre or supermarket, you’ll automatically qualify for compensation. This isn’t the case.

Property owners and occupiers are legally obliged to take reasonable steps to prevent and minimise harm to those using their premises. This legal obligation is known as a “duty of care.”

However, this doesn’t mean they guarantee absolute safety – they must simply take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.

If a shopping centre or supermarket owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable accidents and injuries, they’re unlikely to be liable for damages. However, if you can prove the owner was negligent and failed to provide reasonable protection, they may have violated their duty of care and could be liable for your injury.

Proving negligence

The onus is on you and your attorney to show that, on a balance of probabilities, the property owner or occupier acted negligently. Before pursuing legal action, consider these questions:

• Does the property owner regularly clean, inspect and repair the premises or equipment? Is there proof of this?
• Did the property owner fail to post warning signs or implement barriers to prevent accidents?
• Could your own actions have contributed to the accident?

For example, if you were distracted at the time of the accident or wearing inappropriate footwear that could have contributed to a fall, a court may rule that you’re fully or partially responsible for your injuries.

In cases of contributory negligence, your compensation will be reduced in proportion to your degree of fault.

Recent South African court cases involving supermarket accidents

Several recent judgments have clarified the principles governing shopping centre and supermarket accident claims in South Africa.

Goodwood Mall Slip and Fall (2022)

In a landmark Supreme Court of Appeal judgment (Naheel Investments v Swanepoel 2022 ZASCA 183), the court found a shopping centre liable after a woman slipped on wet tiles during rain. The centre’s argument that the plaintiff should have been more careful was rejected.

Expert evidence showed the tiles became wholly unsuitable when wet. The court also found that the centre’s disclaimer notice was ineffective as it didn’t specifically refer to wet floors and was partially obstructed from view. This judgment significantly strengthened plaintiffs’ rights in slip-and-fall cases.

Pick n Pay N1 City Spillage Case (2023)

In Williams v Pick n Pay Retailers 2023 ZAWCHC 229, a regular customer slipped on a spillage near the pasta aisle at N1 City Mall. The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), finding that Pick n Pay failed to prove it had adequate cleaning systems in place.

The retailer’s claim that the plaintiff was negligent was rejected — the court found she slipped due to the spillage, not from haste or inattention.

Big Save Uneven Ramp (2022)

In Mthembu v Big Save Store, Mabopane 2022 ZAGPPHC 1013, a customer slipped and fell on an uneven descending ramp while exiting a supermarket carrying groceries.

The court found the store liable for failing to install handrails and visible warning signs. The judgment emphasised that even regular customers benefit from prominent warnings, as these serve as constant reminders to proceed with caution.

Restaurant Wet Floor Case (2025)

In Morrison v MSA Devco 2025 ZAWCHC 21, a restaurant patron slipped on a wet floor that had just been cleaned.

The court found the restaurant liable for failing to place wet floor notices. The argument that the plaintiff’s footwear contributed to the fall was rejected, as the wet floor surface was not noticeable. The court reinforced that strict cleaning protocols must be followed.

Peregrine Plaza Dew Incident (2025)

In Barnard v Peregrine Plaza 2025 ZAWCHC 48, a shopper slipped on morning dew on an outdoor wooden deck at a shopping complex.

The court accepted that the deck was wet and slippery enough to cause the fall. The shopping centre’s argument that “shine” on the planks was from sealant rather than moisture was rejected, as management wasn’t present at the scene that morning.

Notable historical incidents

Several high-profile incidents have shaped public awareness of shopping centre liability in South Africa. These demonstrate the range and severity of potential shopping centre accidents, from routine slip-and-fall incidents to catastrophic structural failures.

• Sandton Shopping Centre (2019) – A gas bottle explosion at a restaurant caused a fire that hospitalised eight people with serious to critical burn wounds.
• Cradlestone and Trade Route Malls (2017) – Severe weather caused roof collapses at both centres, injuring patrons. At Cradlestone near Krugersdorp, two people were injured during a hailstorm. At Trade Route Mall in Lenasia, heavy flooding led to the collapse.
• Menlyn Park Shopping Centre (2016) – A concrete slab slipped, and weeks later glass panes fell on construction workers — incidents following similar ceiling collapses at East Rand and Sandton City malls.
• Gateway Theatre of Shopping (2014) – A glass panel fell from a skylight onto a family, causing lacerations and a severe head injury requiring nine stitches.
• Galleria Shopping Mall, Amanzimtoti – A six-year-old girl lost three toes when her foot became stuck in an escalator whose emergency stop button failed to respond immediately.
• Spar, Brakpan (2006) – A woman suffered a neck fracture and soft-tissue damage after tripping over a raised tile (Govender v Spar Group Ltd 2009 ZAGPJHC 73).

Disclaimer notices: not an absolute defence

Many shopping centres display disclaimer notices attempting to limit their liability. However, South African courts have repeatedly confirmed that such notices are not an absolute defence.

For a disclaimer to be effective, the defendant must prove that:

• the plaintiff actually saw the disclaimer
• the plaintiff had time to familiarise themselves with its contents
• the plaintiff understood or reasonably should have understood its meaning and extent
• the disclaimer was specific about the risks (for example, specifically mentioning wet floors, not just general hazards)
• the disclaimer was clearly visible and not obstructed.

Potential liability of cleaning contractors

Shopping centres and malls often appoint cleaning contractors to maintain their premises. These arrangements typically involve detailed service level agreements (SLAs) that specify the contractor’s duties. They also often include indemnity clauses.

When such indemnity clauses exist, the cleaning company may step into the position of the shopping centre if a member of the public is injured due to the contractor’s failure to fulfil their duties.

However, as demonstrated in the Goodwood Mall case, courts will scrutinise these arrangements. If the SLA doesn’t accurately detail the cleaning company’s duties, or if the shopping centre hasn’t done enough to discharge its own duty toward the public, the centre cannot simply hide behind the contractor relationship.

What to do if you’re injured at a shopping centre

If you or a family member is injured at a shopping centre, your first concern will be taking care of any medical needs and the surrounding trauma.

However, it can strengthen a potential claim if you take the following steps:

• Report the incident to centre management as soon as possible.
• Gather evidence by taking photographs of where the incident occurred and what caused it.
• Record details including the exact time, date and circumstances of the accident.
• Collect witness information including names and contact details.
• Request CCTV footage – ask management to preserve any surveillance recordings.
• Keep all medical records, including invoices for treatment and prescriptions.
• Avoid detailed discussions with centre representatives beyond reporting what occurred.

Also, ensure that you don’t sign any documents you’re given about the incident. Review these properly and discuss them with a personal injury attorney first.

Why claim after a shopping centre injury?

Even apparently minor injuries can result in significant medical expenses. More serious injuries may require extended hospitalisation, on-going specialist treatment and rehabilitation. An injury may also force you to take time off work, resulting in loss of income.

A successful personal injury claim can ensure these losses are recovered. Depending on the nature of the case, you may receive compensation for:

• past and future medical expenses
• loss of income and earning capacity
• general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life

Beyond personal recovery, successful claims also serve an important public function. They hold shopping centres and supermarkets accountable for maintaining safe premises. In this way, they can help prevent others from being injured in the future.

Getting expert representation

Supermarket and shopping centre accident claims can be complex, particularly when proving negligence. The legal principles involved – duty of care, foreseeability, causation and contributory negligence – require careful analysis and skilled presentation.

It’s highly recommended that you seek advice and representation from a qualified personal injury attorney before approaching the shopping centre or supermarket.

An experienced personal injury attorney can:

• assess the viability of your claim
• gather and preserve crucial evidence
• help obtain expert testimony where needed (for example, from architects, engineers or safety specialists)
• negotiate with insurers and legal representatives
• represent you in court if a settlement cannot be reached.