The whole question of how far reaching the public building owners or managers' responsibilities can be in public liability matters has once again come under review as a result of a recent High Court case in which a young man was paralysed for life
This case (Holm v Sonland Ontwikkeling), shows yet again that owners of buildings used by the general public - which includes apartment blocks and developments with communal facilities - cannot be too careful in making them as safe as possible. In the case referred to Sonland Ontwikkeling provided a volleyball court at their shopping complex in Mpumalanga for the use of their customers. This court was next to a dam. When Holm's ball ended up in the dam water, he dived in to retrieve it and, not knowing how shallow the dam was, broke his neck and became paralysed. The court ruled that both the injured man and the shopping centre had been negligent, the latter because they had not erected notices warning that the dam was dangerously shallow, even though swimming in the dam was not part of the centre's customer benefits. The court ruled that the direct costs and the compensation had to be split 50/50 between the injured man and the shopping centre. In a similar, though less serious case (Swinburn v Newbee Investments), a tenant in a block of flats fell on the stairs and broke his leg. The body corporate was then deemed by the court to have been negligent in not providing a handrail and was ordered to pay costs and compensation. In both these cases it was clear that the injured person could have avoided injury had they taken greater care and used their common sense. However, the courts' attitude appears to be that it is the owners' duty to protect the public even when they are not behaving with the caution that could be expected of them. Bodies corporate and building owners must take note of this if they wish to avoid large claims at some stage. *Sandy Walsh is the head of training and education at the Institute of Estate Agents Western Cape branch