What happened

In 2018, a large box carried precariously on a standard shopping trolley struck Marmara at the Woy Woy store's self-checkout. Customers could request collection of bulky items from a loading dock, but the procedure was optional and was not drawn to their attention.

The issues

The appeal concerned whether reasonable precautions required preventing customers from transporting heavy oversized goods on standard trolleys, and whether those precautions would have prevented this injury. Kmart also challenged the safety expert's evidence and the trial judge's treatment of its existing procedure.

The court's decision

The court upheld the admission of the expert evidence and found that mandatory safe transport arrangements, signs and staff training were reasonable in the circumstances. It inferred that customers would have followed reasonable staff directions and dismissed the appeal with costs. A separate 2025 decision refused Marmara's application to vary the appeal costs order.

Understanding the figures

The appeal left standing the historical AUD $624,775.60 trial judgment, with Kmart ordered to pay appeal costs. The 2025 decision recorded payment of the judgment and post-judgment interest, but dismissed Marmara's costs-variation motion with costs.

What this case shows

The existence of a safer option was different from operating a system that prevented the unsafe activity. That distinction also mattered to causation: an optional alternative and a mandatory procedure produced different counterfactual questions.

Why another case may differ

The court expressly confined its conclusion to the Woy Woy store on the evidence before it. It did not prescribe identical precautions for every retailer or bulky item. The later costs decision did not reverse the liability ruling under ss 5B and 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

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? →