What happened

In 2014, glass penetrated the plaintiff's shoe when he rose after sitting with friends at a hotel table. Infection led to hospital treatment. He claimed continuing inability to work, but the evidence did not adequately separate the accident's effects from his pre-existing medical conditions.

The issues

The liability questions were whether the hotel should have had reasonable inspection and cleaning arrangements and whether those precautions would have prevented the injury. Damages required separate proof that the incident caused the claimed loss of income and continuing treatment needs.

The court's decision

The court accepted that glass was beneath the table and found breach and causation in the failure to inspect and remove it at minimal burden. The obvious-risk defence failed on the findings concerning glass the plaintiff had neither seen nor reason to expect. His accident-related foot problems had largely resolved by August 2014, so no future damages were allowed.

Understanding the figures

The actual historical judgment of AUD 43,681.20 comprised AUD 6,500 for non-economic loss, AUD 2,155.30 for past expenses and AUD 35,025.90 for past earnings. No future expenses or earning-capacity damages were awarded. The defendant was ordered to pay costs, with leave to seek a different costs order.

What this case shows

The case links a practical inspection precaution to prevention of the particular injury. Success on liability did not establish prolonged incapacity or aggravation of existing illness: provisional expert opinions without adequate contemporary records placed substantial limits on the damages case.

Why another case may differ

The result depends on the findings about the glass and the hotel's operation; it does not prescribe a universal inspection interval for premises. Contributory negligence was abandoned at trial. The non-economic loss percentage and monetary conversion reflect the Civil Liability Act 2002 assessment in 2018.

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? →