What happened

In 2014, Mr Bridge slipped while returning to his car after shopping at Coles in Coffs Harbour. He was steering the trolley with one hand while attending to his phone. Evidence included slip-resistance testing and pre-accident emails in which local management described water in the carpark as a safety hazard.

The issues

The appeal concerned Coles' knowledge of the slipping risk and the need for precautions such as a slip-resistant pedestrian route. It also asked whether the customer's brief distraction amounted to contributory negligence that contributed to his injury.

The court's decision

The majority found that the trial judge had misconstrued an early email, but later emails from 2013 and the surface evidence established awareness of the risk. Coles remained liable, while answering the phone without stopping contributed to the fall and justified a reduction. The appeal succeeded only in part, and Coles was ordered to pay two-thirds of Mr Bridge's appeal costs.

Understanding the figures

The corrected orders replaced the AUD $769,381 judgment with the published sum of $577,035 after the 25% reduction. That is the historical judgment amount, not a total including the separately allocated costs.

What this case shows

Contemporaneous management emails can be important evidence of actual awareness of a hazard. Momentary inattention may still justify contributory negligence, although wearing thongs was not itself established to be negligent in this case.

Why another case may differ

Emmett AJA's conclusion that Coles was not liable was not the majority result. Liability did not follow merely from wet conditions: the particular surface and prior evidence mattered. The published figures incorporate the August 2018 corrections, and the 25% reduction is not a tariff for every fall involving a phone.

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? →