Mall accidents and legal rights: SA courts enforce safety standards

Shopping centre accidents are more common and often more serious than many South Africans realise. Incidents range from wet supermarket floors and falling merchandise to faulty escalators and collapsing roofs, turning routine shopping trips into life-changing events.

According to DSC Attorneys partner Kirstie Haslam, personal injury claims linked to shopping centres and supermarkets are increasing, with courts holding property owners accountable where reasonable safety measures were not taken.

“People assume that accidents in malls are just ‘bad luck’, but the law looks very closely at whether those injuries were foreseeable and preventable,” Haslam says.

Common Hazards

Haslam identifies the most frequent risks:

• Slip, trip and fall incidents caused by wet floors, uneven or defective flooring, poor lighting, missing warning signs, or obstructions such as pallets and boxes left in aisles.
• Structural failures including roof collapses during severe weather, falling ceiling panels, unsecured fixtures and broken glass panels.
• Equipment failures such as malfunctioning escalators or lifts, faulty automatic doors, damaged shopping trolleys and poorly maintained facilities.
• Falling objects from high shelves or unstable displays.
• Less common but serious incidents involving fires and explosions, including gas leaks and electrical faults.

Legal Duty of Care

Property owners and occupiers have a legal duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect the public from foreseeable harm.

“If a shopping centre can show it had proper systems in place, regular inspections, cleaning protocols, warning signage, and maintenance, it may avoid liability,” Haslam explains. “But where those measures are missing, poorly enforced or ignored, liability becomes a real possibility.

“In personal injury cases, the injured party must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the property owner or occupier acted negligently and that this negligence caused the injury,” she says.

Court Decisions

Recent rulings have reinforced accountability:

• Williams v Pick n Pay Retailers (2023): A shopper slipped on a spillage. The retailer was found liable after failing to show adequate cleaning systems were in place.
• Morrison v MSA Devco (2025): A restaurant was held responsible when a patron slipped on a freshly cleaned floor without warning signage. Arguments about footwear were dismissed.
• Barnard v Peregrine Plaza (2025): A shopping centre was found liable after a shopper slipped on a dew-covered outdoor deck. The court criticised the absence of on-site management.

“These cases show that courts expect proactive safety management, not excuses after the fact,” Haslam says.

Disclaimers

Shopping centres often rely on disclaimer notices stating that entry is “at your own risk”. Courts have ruled that such notices are not automatic protection. For a disclaimer to be effective, it must be clearly visible, specific about the risk, and proven to have been seen and understood by the injured person.

Steps After Injury

Haslam advises that injured parties should seek medical attention first, then take practical steps to strengthen a claim: report the incident immediately, take photographs, record the time and circumstances, gather witness details, request CCTV footage, and keep medical records.

“Importantly, don’t sign any documents or provide detailed statements without legal advice,” she cautions.

Why Claims Matter

Even minor injuries can result in medical costs, rehabilitation, lost income, and long-term consequences. Successful claims may cover medical expenses, loss of earnings, and compensation for pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life.

“Shopping centres are public spaces designed for convenience,” Haslam says. “When safety systems fail, people should not have to absorb the financial and physical consequences alone.”

PERSONAL FINANCE