Four years after a seemingly ordinary dinner ended in emergency surgery, the Western Cape High Court has served up a stern warning to the hospitality industry: if a hazardous object reaches a diner’s plate, negligence may be inferred, unless proven otherwise.

In a compelling recent judgment (Williams v Beyerskloof Wine Bar (Pty) Ltd (16561/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 240 (29 May 2025)), the Western Cape High Court reaffirmed that ensuring safety in food service is not optional but is a legal obligation. This followed an incident where a restaurant patron, Maxine Williams, endured a five-day medical ordeal after a traumatic dining experience left her physically injured and emotionally burdened.

On 3 October 2020, what was meant to be a pleasant dining experience at the Beyerskloof Wine Bar took a sudden turn when Williams bit into a hamburger and swallowed a sharp, needle-like object. The object remained lodged in her throat for five days while attempts were made to dislodge it. A delictual claim was subsequently brought by Williams against the restaurant, asserting that it had a duty to serve safe food, and had breached that duty.

Four years later, the Western Cape High Court handed down a powerful judgment that functions both as a caution to restaurateurs and a practical guide for legal practitioners dealing with personal injury claims.

The restaurant denied responsibility, claiming it sourced ingredients from reputable suppliers and that the object must have been introduced by someone else. However, it called no witnesses from the kitchen and relied solely on the general manager, who had no firsthand knowledge of the incident.

The Court carefully considered all five elements of a delictual claim. It found that the restaurant committed an act or omission by serving food containing a hazardous foreign object, which was wrongful as it posed a danger to patrons. Causation was established through the “but-for” test: but for the supply of unsafe food, the harm would not have occurred. The harm element was satisfied as Williams suffered physical injury, emotional distress, and had to undergo hospitalisation and surgery.

On the critical question of fault, the Court ultimately held that the restaurant was negligent, as it failed to demonstrate any effective safety measures or explain how the needle entered the food, despite attracting a burden of proof in this regard. One of the most interesting aspects of this case was the Court’s reliance on the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself”. The Court held that a needle in a hamburger is not something that occurs in the ordinary course of business without negligence. The learned judge wrote:“ The occurrence is self-evident … the defendant must adduce evidence to the contrary or risk being found negligent.”

Once an inference is drawn based on the application of res ipsa loquitur, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a reasonable explanation. Despite making speculative assertions about health and safety protocols and “unforeseen circumstances”, the Court found that the restaurant failed to provide any tangible proof, such as inspection records or testimony from food preparation staff, to show how the object may have entered the food.

This case underscores the importance of adducing sufficient and appropriate evidence in court proceedings. The plaintiff produced hospital records and gave credible, consistent testimony. In contrast, the restaurant’s only witness lacked direct knowledge of the incident, and no evidence was presented by those responsible for preparing food that evening. The Court found in favour of the plaintiff on the merits and held the restaurant liable for damages, which are yet to be quantified.

Key takeaways

• For claimants: This case illustrates the value of securing medical records, keeping receipts, and preserving any foreign objects where possible. 
• For restaurateurs: Merely claiming adherence to food safety standards is not enough. Clear documentation and testimony from informed staff are vital.
• For legal practitioners: The case provides a practical example of how res ipsa loquitur can shift the evidentiary burden when direct proof of negligence is limited.
• For consumers: The law protects them from harm, even years after an incident, provided they can present clear and credible evidence.
• For businesses: This judgment is a wake-up call. Generic claims of compliance won’t stand up in court. Safety protocols must not only exist, they must be demonstrable.

This judgment affirms that the hospitality industry has a legal duty to ensure that the products and services it provides to patrons are safe. If a hazardous item ends up on a customer’s plate, a presumption of negligence may arise, unless a clear and plausible explanation is offered.

Written by Justin Malherbe, Associate Director & Nosiphiwo Rala, Associate at Webber Wentzel