What happened

The plaintiff injured both knees in a December 2011 shopping centre fall. CCTV showed a cleaner working in the same area shortly beforehand, and she described a greasy, slimy substance on her hands. A similar fall at another centre in 2012 complicated the cause of her continuing symptoms, although she remained at work.

The issues

The issues were whether the cleaner had adequately removed the spill or warned customers and how much continuing loss was attributable to the first accident. Distinguishing underlying arthritis from the effect of the second fall was particularly important.

The court's decision

The Court accepted the plaintiff's early description and found that the cleaning was incomplete and a warning sign should have been used. It found continuing aggravation from the first accident but adjusted damages substantially for the second accident's contribution. Judgment was entered for AUD 64,955.87 plus separately ordered costs.

Understanding the figures

The AUD 64,955.87 comprised AUD 20,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 27,780 for future commercial care, an AUD 10,000 earning capacity buffer, AUD 2,175.87 in expenses and AUD 5,000 for future medical expenses. These were the assessed amounts after accounting for the later fall, separate from costs.

What this case shows

Evidence of cleaning immediately before a fall, read with the timing of the plaintiff's account, helped establish breach. Even after liability was established, attributing all continuing symptoms and future loss to the first defendant remained a separate evidentiary question.

Why another case may differ

The assessment applied the Civil Liability Act 2002 to a 2011 accident and reflects historical amounts. The adjustment for the second fall was a causation assessment, not contributory negligence. Gratuitous domestic assistance did not meet the statutory threshold, while future paid care and earning loss were allowed only on a limited basis.

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? →