Municipal Liability for Trip Hazards on Public Sidewalks

The recent Western Cape High Court case, Schaefer v City of Cape Town, sets a boundary on when the City can be sued for injuries from tripping on public sidewalks. The court decided the City of Cape Town was not at fault (neither "wrongful" nor "negligent") when a woman, Ms. Schaefer, tripped over a slightly raised paving brick and injured her knee. Ultimately, her claim for damages was dismissed.

What Happened in the Case?

The Accident

In October 2017, Ms. Schaefer was walking in Camps Bay on Victoria Road and fell over a paving brick that was sticking up. She suffered a serious knee fracture.

The Lawsuit

She sued the City, arguing it had a duty to keep the sidewalk safe, fix the broken brick, and warn people about the danger. The City fought the claim, saying they weren't careless (negligent) and didn't even know about the defect. They also argued that Ms. Schaefer was partly to blame because she wasn't paying enough attention to where she was walking ("not keeping a proper lookout").

The Court's Key Questions

The judge had to answer three main questions, which are the fundamental building blocks for a successful lawsuit like this (a "delictual" claim):

1. Was the City's failure to fix or warn "Wrongful?" (Did they have a legal duty to fix it?)
2. Was the City "Negligent?" (Did they fail to do what a reasonable city should have done?)
3. Did Ms. Schaefer's own actions "Contribute" to her injury? (Was she partly to blame?)

Why the City Was Found Not Liable

1. Wrongfulness: Balancing Public Interest

The court's decision on wrongfulness was based on a policy decision—what's fair for the injured person versus what's reasonable to expect from the City for the public good.

• Minor, Visible Defect: The judge said that not every single bump or crack on a sidewalk is enough to sue over. The raised brick was described as minor and something a reasonably careful pedestrian would have seen. It wasn't a hidden trap or a major hazard.
• No Prior Knowledge: There was no proof that the City had received complaints about the defect or actually knew about it.
• Unrealistic Expectations: The judge noted that municipalities are responsible for thousands of kilometers of sidewalks. It would be an impossible burden to require them to find and immediately fix every tiny imperfection.

2. Contributory Negligence: Her Fault Didn't Matter (Yet)

The City argued that Ms. Schaefer should have been paying more attention ("contributory negligence"). However, because the court had already decided the City wasn't at fault (no wrongfulness or negligence), it didn't need to rule on whether Ms. Schaefer was partly to blame.

The judgment did confirm, though, that in these kinds of cases, even if the City was negligent, the court will always check if the injured person was also acting carelessly and not looking out for their own safety.

Broader Lesson for Trip-and-Fall Claims

The case sends a clear message:

• A broken sidewalk alone is not enough to sue. An injured person must prove three things:
• 1. The defect was a significant, unreasonable danger.
  2. The City knew or should have known about it.
  3. The City failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.
• Realistic Expectations: The court won't demand flawless pavements. Making a city liable for every small bump would drain money ("scarce resources") that should be used for more important public services.

In short, the law must be fair to injured people but also reasonable and just for the City and for society as a whole. You cannot win a lawsuit just because you got hurt; you must prove the City acted carelessly concerning a significant danger.