What happened

In February 2011, the plaintiff fell in a shopping centre thoroughfare, injuring his shoulder and aggravating his back condition. A guard had been told about the spill and contacted a cleaner, but there was no effective warning or barrier when the plaintiff approached. Incident records and CCTV supported the plaintiff's account.

The issues

The questions were whether regular cleaning inspections discharged the occupier's duty and whether the security contractor owed a duty despite not being engaged to clean. The defendants also relied on obvious risk and contributory negligence.

The court's decision

The inspection interval was reasonable, but the system lacked a protocol for the period between reporting and cleaning a spill. The guard also failed to protect customers after learning of the danger, and the defendants were found equally responsible. The plaintiff received AUD 90,815 without contributory negligence; the corporate second plaintiff's separate claim was abandoned and dismissed.

Understanding the figures

The individual plaintiff's AUD 90,815 comprised AUD 38,500 for non-economic loss, AUD 17,315 in past expenses, AUD 10,000 in past earnings loss and AUD 25,000 for future earning capacity. Costs of the individual and corporate claims were ordered separately.

What this case shows

Reporting a hazard and protecting people until it is removed are distinct parts of a safe system. The security contractor's liability turned on knowledge and conduct at the scene, as well as the contractual arrangements.

Why another case may differ

This was a fact-specific application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 to a 2011 accident, not a rule making every security contractor responsible for every spill. Expected progression of spinal disease, part-time work and inadequate evidence of future care limited damages. The cross-claim orders between defendants were not additional compensation for the customer.

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? →