Eze v Adderley Body Corporate and Another

The plaintiff was walking on a public pavement along Adderley Street in Cape Town near the Adderley Building. A piece of rotten wood fell from the ceiling overhang of the building and struck his left shoulder, injuring him. The first defendant was the body corporate responsible for managing and maintaining the building; the second defendant was its managing agent. The ceiling overhang had a hole approximately 300-400 mm wide, caused by water leaking from the balcony above. The area was always wet and birds lived in the roof. An employee of the first defendant, De Bryn, was aware of these conditions and had previously taken photographs of ceiling problems in 2014. The employee took the plank away after the incident and compiled a report. Repairs were only done in 2018, some two years after the incident.

• Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a member of the public using the pavement under the overhang
• Whether the defendants breached their duty to maintain the building in a reasonably safe condition
• Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be applied to infer negligence from the circumstances of the accident
• Whether the defendants' failure to present evidence meant the plaintiff's version stood unchallenged

a) The defendants are liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove to have been suffered as a result of the injury sustained when struck by a falling plank on 10 March 2016. b) The defendants shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit, including the services of counsel.

Where an object falls from a building ceiling that overhangs a public pavement, and there is evidence that the ceiling was in a state of disrepair (a hole caused by water damage, always wet, sheltering birds), the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur entitles a court to infer negligence on the part of those responsible for managing and maintaining the building, particularly where the defendant fails to offer any explanation to rebut the inference. A party in control of a building must maintain it in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable harm.

The court noted that the defendants' election not to call witnesses did not automatically mean the plaintiff's evidence must be accepted, but rather that they put the plaintiff to his burden of proof. The court also observed that a fruit falling from a tree is not extraordinary, but an object falling from a ceiling is unusual and ordinarily indicates negligence. The court commented that res ipsa loquitur sometimes requires a defendant to give an explanation consistent with the absence of negligence.

This case reaffirms the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in South African law of delict for falling objects from buildings. It clarifies that a body corporate and its managing agent owe a duty of care to members of the public using a pavement under a building overhang. The decision illustrates that a defendant's failure to present evidence when an inference of negligence arises can be fatal to their defence, as the inference remains unrebutted. It also highlights the evidential burden on defendants to explain an accident consistent with the absence of negligence.