Beyerskloof Wine Bar has successfully overturned a high court ruling that held it liable for injuries suffered by a customer who swallowed a needle-like object while eating a hamburger at the restaurant, with a full bench finding that negligence had not been proven.
In a judgment handed down on Monday, October 12, the Western Cape High Court upheld the restaurant’s appeal and set aside an earlier ruling in favour of Maxine Williams, dismissing her claim and ordering her to pay the restaurant’s legal costs, including the costs of the appeal.
The case stems from an incident in October 2020 when Williams allegedly swallowed a needle-like object while eating a hamburger at the Stellenbosch restaurant. She was admitted to hospital after scans revealed the object lodged in her throat and subsequently sued the restaurant for damages, arguing that the foreign object could only have entered her body through the food served to her.
A trial court previously ruled in Williams’ favour, finding that the facts “spoke for themselves” and holding the restaurant liable for damages arising from the incident. However, the full bench found that the lower court had incorrectly relied on the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) to infer negligence.
No proof of negligence
Writing for the court, PS Van Zyl said the plaintiff had failed to prove one of the essential elements of a delictual claim: negligence. The court found there was no evidence explaining how the foreign object entered the hamburger or which ingredient contained it.
The judgment noted that the restaurant sourced ingredients from reputable suppliers, had food safety protocols in place and had never previously experienced a similar incident. The court concluded that a reasonable person in the restaurant’s position would not have foreseen the presence of a foreign object in an unidentified ingredient of the hamburger.
The judges further held that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the restaurant after inferring negligence from the incident itself. The onus remained on the plaintiff throughout the proceedings to prove negligence on a balance of probabilities.
Court rejects strict liability approach
The full bench also rejected any suggestion that restaurants should be held automatically liable when foreign objects are found in food. Referring to an established Supreme Court of Appeal precedent, the court said South African law does not impose strict liability in such circumstances where the common-law Aquilian action provides an adequate remedy.
The judges said liability could only arise if fault, including negligence, was proven, and found that Williams had not met that burden.
- Beyerskloof Wine Bar successfully overturned a high court ruling that held it liable for injuries after a customer swallowed a needle-like object in a hamburger.
- The Western Cape High Court full bench found no proof of negligence and set aside the earlier ruling in favor of plaintiff Maxine Williams.
- The court ruled that the trial court incorrectly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and improperly shifted the burden of proof to the restaurant.
- Evidence showed the restaurant sourced ingredients from reputable suppliers, had food safety protocols, and no similar prior incidents had occurred.
- The court rejected strict liability for restaurants in such cases, stating liability requires proof of fault or negligence under South African law.
