A family who alleged that they were injured during a get-together when a tin cup containing ethanol gel - which they used to heat their food with - exploded and injured them, is suing the manufacturer and the distributor of the product for damages.
Johannes and Michale Pieterse turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, where they maintained that the defendants - Organis Synthesis Ltd, the manufacturer, and Steel King Centre Ltd, the distributor, should be held liable for their injuries.
The first and second plaintiffs (the Pieterses) and their wives were, on the day of the incident, having a family meal together. They wanted to heat up their food, which was in little three-legged pots, by using ethanol gel - to which they referred to as Flaz Gel.
The gel was contained in tin cups and was placed underneath the pots.
At some point during their meal, one of the men’s wives indicated that the flame under her pot had gone out and asked that it be refilled with the gel. While it was being refilled, there was an explosion.
After the explosion, the two men and one of the wives, Elizabeth Pieterse, were covered in this gel, all in varying degrees, on their bodies. They said that they had subsequently sustained burns as a result of the gel.
Elizabeth, who was initially cited in court papers as the third plaintiff, had recently died and her claim is thus not proceeding.
It is alleged by the plaintiffs in their particulars of claim that the Flaz Gel product which allegedly caused their injuries was bought by Johannes Pieterse at a retailer in Brits a month before the incident.
The Pieterse family stated in court papers that they suffered bodily injuries as a result of the wrongful and negligent conduct of the manufacturer of the Flaz Gel product.
They maintained that the manufacturer had a duty of care towards them as users of the product. In the alternative, the claim was instituted based on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
In the case of the second defendant (Steel King), who it is alleged was the wholesale distributor of the Flaz Gel product to retailers such as Brits Karavane, where the Pieterses bought the product, the claim was brought only in terms of the CPA.
The court was, however, not at this stage asked to determine the damages claim, as the court had to deal with a separate issue concerning a plea raised by Steel King, which said the Pieterses should have turned to the consumer tribunal instead of heading to court.
The CPA prescribes a variety of statutory remedies for the enforcement of consumers’ rights (such as the plaintiffs), which includes referring a dispute to the consumer tribunal or approaching an applicable ombud with the necessary jurisdiction.
According to Steel King, the plaintiffs could only turn to court once they have exhausted all these alternative remedies.
The plaintiffs stated that they agree that they have not exhausted any of the remedies as prescribed in the CPA, but argued that in law, it is neither necessary to do so as their case relates to personal injuries. They asked the court to dismiss Steel King’s argument made out in its pleadings.
Judge Elizabeth Kubushi said that considering the facts of this matter, it is obvious that a referral to either the ombud, the tribunal, or for dispute resolution in terms of the CPA would not have been appropriate or sufficient to deal with the plaintiffs’ claims.
“It is doubtful that either of these remedies would have been able to grant the plaintiffs the relief they sought,” she said in turning down Steel King’s plea. This means that the Pieterses can now take their claim forward to be determined by the court.