What happened
On 27 December 2006, a truck driver delivered goods to a supermarket at Mona Vale and entered the confined area behind his truck to close and latch its rear door. As he turned, he slipped on an oily or greasy floor, struck a wall and fell into a pit, sustaining a fracture to the neck of his left humerus and lasting shoulder pain and restriction. His unchallenged evidence and the contamination later found on his clothing and legs supported the finding about the floor’s condition.
The issues
The issues were whether the contaminant caused the fall, whether the occupier breached its duty by failing to take reasonable cleaning precautions, and whether the driver was contributorily negligent by not moving the truck first. The defendant also sought a reduction under s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), alleging fault by the plaintiff’s employer in relation to inspection or reporting systems.
The court's decision
The court found that oil or grease caused the fall and created a foreseeable, not insignificant risk that regular cleaning could readily have addressed, establishing Coles’ liability. It rejected contributory negligence because the risk was not reasonably foreseeable to the driver, and rejected the s 151Z(2) reduction because the evidence did not establish employer fault. Judgment was entered for AUD 396,644 plus costs.
Understanding the figures
The judgment total was AUD 396,644: AUD 7,885 past treatment, AUD 32,800 future treatment, AUD 59,834 past economic loss, AUD 187,125 future economic loss and AUD 109,000 non-economic loss. There was no contributory-negligence or s 151Z(2) employer-fault reduction, and no interest was claimed.
What this case shows
The case shows that an injury occurring during work may still be an occupier’s public-liability claim where the immediate cause is a third party’s premises management. It also demonstrates that a defendant seeking a statutory reduction for employer fault must prove the relevant inspection or reporting arrangements and breach, rather than rely on assertion.
Why another case may differ
The finding depended significantly on the driver’s unchallenged evidence of contamination and the absence of evidence from the storeman who attended after the fall. It does not make an occupier liable for every loading-dock fall; proof of the contaminant, notice, cleaning system, route and the entrant’s care may differ. The damages are historical amounts assessed for a 2006 accident under the statutory context applied in 2010.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →