What happened
A customer dropped a piece of mango at the supermarket entrance at about 5:02 pm on 31 May 2021. Ms Gomez slipped on it at about 5:11 pm and fractured her kneecap; CCTV established both times. The store used hourly inspection calls and a clean-as-you-go system, but the 5:00 pm inspection had not occurred.
The issues
The court examined the adequacy and implementation of inspection and cleaning precautions, and whether any proven failure caused the injury. It also considered whether nearby employees should have detected and removed the fruit, including whether CCTV justified that inference about their actual lines of sight.
The court's decision
The judge found shortcomings in implementing hourly inspections and arranging a direct check of the entrance. But a compliant 5:00 pm inspection would have preceded the dropped fruit, and no reasonable precaution requiring an inspection during the intervening nine minutes was established. The claim was dismissed, and on 21 May 2024 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Gomez’s appeal with costs.
What this case shows
Breach of duty and causation remained separate questions. Where the time a hazard appeared was known precisely, the court could not simply apply probability-based reasoning used in cases where its duration on the floor was unknown.
Why another case may differ
This does not establish that hourly inspections are sufficient in every supermarket. The entrance layout, employees’ responsibilities and sightlines, the cleaning systems and the nine-minute interval were decisive. The AUD 147,500 assessed in the 2023 reasons was contingent on liability and must not be described as money awarded.
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? →