Court dismisses R1 million claim against Makro after elderly shopper falls outside Alberton store

Shopper loses R1 million claim after court finds Makro hazard was not proven.

A 72-year-old Alberton man who claimed more than R1 million in damages after slipping and falling outside Makro has failed in his legal battle against the retailer.

Johannes Martin Ehrke lost his claim in the Johannesburg High Court after instituting a damage claim against Masstores (Pty) Ltd, trading as Makro SA Alberton, following an incident at the store on December 19, 2020.

Ehrke claimed over R1 million plus interest and legal costs, alleging that he was injured after stepping on laminated pieces of paper while negotiating a slope on his way to his vehicle.

According to the judgment, Ehrke had visited Makro with his wife to buy paint while Covid-19 restrictions were in place.

He testified that he had purchased two 5-litre cans of paint and carried them in his hands as he and his wife left the store.

Ehrke said they walked towards the entrance and his vehicle, which was parked nearby. He alleged that he fell between bollards at the entrance while negotiating a slight downslope.

His case was that laminated pieces of paper had been left on the ground and caused his feet to slip from underneath him.

He alleged that Makro had been negligent by failing to keep the area safe, failing to remove dangerous objects, failing to provide adequate warnings and failing to properly monitor the area.

The injuries listed in his claim included a right hip fracture, a T2 injury, soft-tissue injuries to his back and right hip, and an injury to his right thumb.

He claimed damages for medical expenses, loss of income, future loss of income or employability and general damages.

The evidence before the court included photographs of the area where the incident occurred. Ehrke's son also testified that he had visited the store around the time of the incident and had seen laminated pages on the ground.

However, there were differences between the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses about the tape, trolleys and conditions at the entrance.

The court heard that Covid-19 crowd-control measures were in place at the time. Customers were required to follow designated routes and queues, while tape, signage and staff were used to control the movement of shoppers.