What happened

Ms Raketic fell in a supermarket aisle on 10 March 2016 and sustained soft tissue injuries affecting her shoulder, back and hip. A freezer had been leaking for days, and a towel had failed to contain the water. The owner saw two signs after the accident, but the nearby employee did not give evidence and the CCTV recording had not been preserved.

The issues

The remaining issues were whether Ms Raketic should have noticed a warning or the water, and the appropriate damages for her proven symptoms. Breach of duty and causation of the fall were admitted.

The court's decision

The court accepted Ms Raketic’s account that no warning signs were present and found no evidence that the water itself was noticeable. It rejected contributory negligence. Judgment was entered for AUD 31,103, comprising non-economic loss, medical and related expenses, and limited future domestic assistance; costs were reserved.

Understanding the figures

The historical award totalled AUD 31,103: AUD 21,500 for non-economic loss, AUD 1,733 for past expenses, AUD 4,000 for future expenses and AUD 3,870 for future domestic assistance. The 20% assessment of a most extreme case was a statutory non-economic loss assessment, not a contributory negligence deduction. Costs remained reserved.

What this case shows

Seeing warning signs after a fall did not establish that they were there beforehand. The judgment also distinguishes a proven need for help at home from satisfaction of the statutory requirements for compensating that help.

Why another case may differ

This decision concerns contributory negligence and quantum after the supermarket’s liability was admitted. Two hours of weekly gratuitous care did not meet the applicable statutory threshold, and the economic loss claim was abandoned. The amounts reflect these injuries and the Civil Liability Act 2002 framework applied in 2018, rather than a current tariff.

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? →