R2 coin-sized spill exposes limits of outsourcing for major retailers
Pick n Pay told off by the Supreme Court of Appeal for trying to abdicate responsibility to its outsourced cleaning company after a slip and fall case.
Image: Supplied
A slip on an oily spot – variously the size of a R2 coin or an A3 piece of paper – in a Cape Town Pick n Pay has reminded retailers that hiring a contractor doesn’t wash away responsibility.
This comes after Maria Williams, widow of late rugby star Chester Williams, slipped in its Cape Town Northern Suburbs Goodwood store in 2017, injuring her hip and shoulder.
A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment paints a vivid picture of the hazard. Mrs Williams testified she stepped on a substance that Pick n Pay said was roughly the size of a two-rand coin, but she said was about A3 in size.
“Mrs Williams was shopping with her sister. Upon approaching the till point, she recalled that she had forgotten to collect a specific item, namely an electric fly repellent. While proceeding at a brisk walking pace (but not running) to retrieve the said item, Mrs Williams slipped and fell to the floor,” the ruling stated.
Pick n Pay denied liability, saying that she was negligent because she “failed to maintain a proper lookout, neglected to take reasonable precautions to avoid the hazard, and thereby failed to prevent her own injury”.
The retailer, South Africa’s third-largest, also said it discharged its duty of care to its customers by engaging the services of cleaning company Bluedot. But the court said this did not absolve the retailer from its responsibilities towards its customers.
“Therefore, it was not enough, based on the circumstances of this case, for Pick n Pay to merely hire out the cleaning services of Bluedot. They also had a duty to do more on their part, rather than passively relying on Bluedot to do their work,” the ruling read.
The decision added that Pick n Pay “had the responsibility of double-checking and supervising Bluedot by actively reviewing its logbooks and implementing effective systems to ensure the safety of their customers”.
In the ruling, the judge found that Pick n Pay did not adhere to safety protocols because the spill had been there for some time, said the judge.
In addition, the hazard was not identified through Pick n Pay’s spot check – or “mule train” – process, no Pick n Pay employee was in the aisle, and the incident was only flagged by an external marketer.
The court said the lapse was a clear breach of duty. “The presence of the hazardous substance, coupled with the absence of any warning or remedial action, constituted negligence.”
The case also clarifies a key legal principle that outsourcing operational tasks does not remove the non-delegable duty of care owed to customers.
“The mere outsourcing of operational functions does not of and in itself absolve Pick n Pay of its overarching obligation to supervise the performance of its contractors and to take reasonable steps to ensure the premises remain safe for public use.”
The SCA dismissed Pick n Pay’s application for leave to appeal the Western Cape High Court ruling that also found that it was liable. It said the company had failed to show any reason why another court might reach a different conclusion.
“The applicant has failed to discharge this burden. No factual or evidentiary basis has been advanced to suggest that another court would reach a different outcome from that of the high court.”
Pick n Pay was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
IOL BUSINESS