What happened
Macari slipped on metal steps while working at Snack Brands’ factory on 25 June 2018. Water could splash from an adjacent potato hopper, but the steps were designed for wet conditions and there was evidence that they had not previously been found slippery. His accounts of the conditions and mechanism changed during the litigation.
The issues
The questions were whether water, potato debris, wear or the handrail arrangement created a negligent hazard and caused the fall. The Court also had to assess whether the experts’ factual assumptions were established and whether reasonable precautions by the occupier would have prevented the accident.
The court's decision
The Court did not accept that boiling or starchy water contaminated the steps, or that the likely presence of cold water made them unsafe. The handrail arrangement was not shown to be causative, and judgment and costs went to the defendant. On 28 November 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the failure to establish the cause of the slip.
Understanding the figures
The Court said it would have assessed historical damages at A$781,500 if liability had been established. That was a hypothetical assessment, not an award to the plaintiff, because judgment was for the defendant. The plaintiff faced an adverse costs order, and the later appeal was also dismissed with costs.
What this case shows
An injury at work did not itself establish negligence by the occupier. The missing link was evidence identifying the unsafe condition and a precaution that would have prevented the injury; expert opinions resting on unproved assumptions did not supply it.
Why another case may differ
This was a labour hire worker’s negligence claim against the host occupier, governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002, rather than a damages claim against his direct employer. Reliable evidence of contamination or unsafe wear could produce a different result. The damages assessment was conditional on establishing liability.
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? →