What happened
A shopper slipped on a wet supermarket floor in December 2009. After an unsuccessful attempt to dry it, staff placed three warning signs and one employee went to obtain absorbent material, but nobody stayed beside the area to redirect customers.
The issues
The issues were whether the signs were sufficient precautions and how responsibility should be shared with the shopper. The court also examined whether conflicting medical reports and subsequent incidents allowed her substantial claim for continuing disability to be linked to this fall.
The court's decision
The court granted leave and substituted judgment for the shopper. Despite the majority finding of breach, the proved loss was confined to agreed out-of-pocket expenses and was ultimately reduced by 50%. She had to pay the appeal costs, and the trial costs order remained.
Understanding the figures
Proved historical AUD loss of $1,773 was reduced by 50%, giving judgment for $886.50. Interest was accommodated by making judgment effective from 5 April 2012. Costs were separate from that recovery.
What this case shows
The presence of warning signs does not decide every slipping claim. The origin of the hazard, ordinary shopper behaviour and the burden of further precautions all mattered; establishing breach remained separate from proving the claimed loss.
Why another case may differ
This appeal concerned a 2009 accident under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), with differing judicial views on breach, contributory negligence and damages. Basten JA's proposed 25% reduction was not the final result. The case does not require permanent staff attendance at every wet area.
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? →