Pauw v Du Preez

The respondent was injured on Christmas Eve 2005 when she lost her balance and fell from an unprotected section of a stairway at a house owned by the appellant in the Strand. The stairway, built on a steep hillside, had a handrail on one side but, below a security gate, the side adjacent to the garage was unprotected, with a drop of approximately 1.2 metres. The respondent had just closed and latched the gate when she lost her balance and fell off the stairway. She instituted a delictual claim alleging that the appellant negligently failed to provide a safety railing. The trial court found the appellant negligent and rejected contributory negligence by the respondent. Subsequent appeals focused solely on whether the respondent was contributorily negligent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant remained fully liable for the respondent’s proven damages.

The case confirms important principles in South African delict law regarding contributory negligence, the onus of proof, and the impermissibility of inferring negligence merely from the fact of a fall. It also reiterates the clear conceptual distinction between wrongfulness and negligence in cases of negligent omissions.