What happened

In November 2015, the plaintiff turned left from the pharmacy entrance onto the footpath. A black ramp used to level a display stand sat on black tiles with an open end. She tripped and subsequently experienced continuing aggravation of degenerative joint disease, affecting household and garden tasks.

The issues

The questions included whether the ramp created a foreseeable trip hazard and whether precautions such as a contrasting colour or closed ends should have been taken. The parties also disputed the plaintiff's lookout, continuing causation and the need for future care.

The court's decision

The Court found the ramp difficult to distinguish and allowed little time to avoid it after leaving the doorway, rejecting contributory negligence. It accepted continuing aggravation, but limited future care to age 80 to account for the expected progression of osteoarthritis. Judgment was entered for AUD 248,603, with a separate costs order.

Understanding the figures

The judgment was AUD 248,603 without contributory negligence. The Court rounded down an assessed total of AUD 248,603.12 for non-economic loss, expenses and past and future care. Expenses included a Medicare repayment; costs were separate.

What this case shows

A retail display outside a doorway can create a foreseeable hazard for customers and pedestrians. The assessment of future paid care considered both the injured person's needs and the spouse's capacity to continue providing assistance.

Why another case may differ

This decision, titled No 2, determines liability and damages for a 2015 accident under the Civil Liability Act 2002. It did not allow lifetime care: evidence about underlying osteoarthritis and the spouse's health limited the period. The amounts and non-economic loss assessment reflect the historical 2018 setting.

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? →