Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter

A CUSTOMER who was injured and had their mobile phone damaged when they slipped and fell on a wet floor in a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) outlet in Harare’s Belgravia suburb has been awarded more than US$2 625 in damages by the civil court. 

Mr Fungai Kudzai Kangai slipped and fell on a wet floor at the entrance of Belgravia KFC last year in February, injuring his back and ended up requiring medical treatment. His mobile phone crashed on the floor and was shattered beyond repair. 

Such accidents can be serious and lead to long-term injuries and an argument can ensue over who was at fault, the shop or the customer.

In this case, Mr Kangai sued for US$10 000 claiming KFC was negligent in having a wet floor at the entrance and so causing him to slip.

Civil court magistrate Ms Judith Taruvinga found KFC had not been mopping the floor at the time but allowed an award of damages. She reduced the claim to US$2 625 plus costs of suit on attorney and client scale at the ruling interbank rate, in a ruling delivered recently. 

The attorney and client scale means that Mr Kangai’s lawyer is paid by KFC at approved rates.

Mr Kangai, who was being represented by Mr Vote Muza of Muza and Nyapadi law firm, claimed the KFC main entrance was poorly designed in that it was sloppy and slippery thereby posing a hazard when it was wet.

Mr Muza accused KFC of failing to put entrance mats or carpets or other high-friction surfaces to protect customers against slipping and falling.

But KFC fought the claim arguing that its main entrance is properly designed to cater for patrons and adequate measures are always taken to ensure that customers are protected from slipping and falling, so the accident and injuries were not a result of poor design of the main entrance. KFC also disputed the size of the claim of US$10 000.

In delivering her ruling, Ms Taruvinga noted that all KFC witnesses testified that no cleaning was taking place at all at the time the accident occurred, but confirmed that Mr Kangai’s cell phone broke on impact with the floor.

She also noted that it was only Mr Kangai who spoke of the cleaning and wet floor and no one else. 

“Regarding the wet floor, I found that defendants KFC were more credible,” Ms Taruvinga said. “If it was being mopped, the defendants (KFC) could have been found vicariously liable but that is not the case. After the fall, the plaintiff (Kangai) has successfully shown evidence of injuries and went to specialists. He has also shown the need for the replacement of his phone. The court is of the view that he is entitled to such relief sought. What he has failed to do is to quantify the special damages that he claims.”

KFC has noted an appeal seeking to challenge the lower court’s decision, arguing that the lower court erred at law and facts by proceeding to award damages when negligence had not been proved.