The Western Cape High Court’s decision in Schaefer v City of Cape Town [2025] ZAWCHC 46 reaffirms the limits of municipal liability in slip-and-trip cases. The judgment examined wrongfulness, negligence, contributory negligence, and policy considerations, ultimately dismissing a damages claim brought after the plaintiff tripped on a raised paving brick. The court held that the City was neither wrongful nor negligent.

Background of the Case
In October 2017, the plaintiff, Ms Schaefer, was walking along Victoria Road in Camps Bay when she tripped over a raised paving brick and sustained a serious knee injury: a comminuted fracture of the patella. She sued the City of Cape Town, alleging that the municipality had a duty to maintain the paving, failed to warn of the danger, and was negligent in not repairing the defect. The City denied negligence and knowledge of the defect, further arguing that Ms Schaefer was partly to blame for her fall because she had not kept a proper lookout.

The Issues Before the Court
Montzinger AJ had to address three central questions: whether the City’s failure to repair or warn about the raised paving was wrongful; whether the City had been negligent in not addressing the defect; and whether Ms Schaefer’s own conduct contributed to her injuries. These issues were considered within the framework of established delictual principles relating to public liability.

Wrongfulness: A Matter of Policy
The court began by examining wrongfulness, emphasising that not every pavement irregularity is sufficient to ground liability. Wrongfulness, the judge explained, is a policy-laden enquiry that balances fairness to the injured party against the broader public interest. In this case, the defect was described as minor and visible to a reasonably careful pedestrian. It was not a hidden danger or an irregularity that created an unreasonable risk of harm.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the City had received complaints or had actual knowledge of the defect. The court observed that municipalities manage thousands of kilometres of pavements, and it would be unrealistic to expect them to eliminate every minor imperfection.

Contributory Negligence: A Defence That Did Not Arise
The City raised contributory negligence, contending that Ms Schaefer had been walking too briskly and not paying adequate attention. The court did not need to decide this point, as the plaintiff had already failed to establish wrongfulness and negligence. However, the judgment highlights the continuing relevance of contributory negligence in slip-and-trip matters: even if a municipality is shown to have breached its duty, courts will still examine whether the injured pedestrian exercised reasonable care for their own safety.

Broader Implications for Municipal Liability
The decision makes it clear that liability will not arise simply because a defect exists. Plaintiffs must prove that the defect created a significant danger, that the municipality had actual or constructive knowledge of it, and that reasonable steps to prevent harm were not taken. The judgment also underscores proportionality: requiring flawless pavements would place an impossible burden on municipalities and divert scarce resources from essential public services.

Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling narrows the scope of municipal liability for everyday trip hazards in public spaces. While occupiers continue to owe duties of care, not every irregularity will give rise to a claim. Schaefer confirms that injury alone is insufficient—knowledge, foreseeability, and breach remain the indispensable elements. Contributory negligence retains relevance, but only once wrongfulness and negligence have been established.

Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder that courts will balance fairness to injured individuals with the broader public interest in realistic, resource-sensitive municipal governance. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that delictual liability must be both just and reasonable, not only for the parties before the court but also for society at large.

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.