What happened

On 23 February 2016 a customer looking for batteries slipped in coffee and fell onto his right shoulder. The manager had viewed CCTV showing another customer's spill, but the footage was not retained despite repeated requests. The claimant had pre-existing shoulder degeneration but had been doing glazing work before the fall.

The issues

The issues were whether the inspection and cleaning arrangements had been followed and whether that failure caused the fall. Damages required separating accident-related aggravation from degeneration and evaluating possible improvement in working capacity after treatment.

The court's decision

The court found that the spill went undetected or unremoved for about an hour and that the reasonable inspection interval on this evidence was no more than 30 minutes. It accepted accident-related aggravation and adhesive capsulitis, awarding damages and costs. The assessment allowed for the prospect of improvement with treatment.

Understanding the figures

The express historical AUD judgment was $293,597.30, with costs separately ordered. It included $61,500 for non-economic loss, together with future treatment, paid domestic assistance and earnings loss. The gratuitous assistance claim was abandoned and formed no part of the award.

What this case shows

Describing an inspection system differs from proving that it operated before the accident. The missing CCTV, the manager's evidence and the duration of the spill together informed the findings of breach and causation.

Why another case may differ

This trial decision applied the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to a 2016 accident. Thirty minutes was an evidence-based finding for this store, not a universal safe interval. A $50 difference between the reasons and the damages table for past earnings is avoided below by reporting the express judgment sum.

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? →