David Jones Ltd v Bates [2001] NSWCA 233

David Jones Ltd v Bates [2001] NSWCA 233

The appellant did not breach its duty of care. The trial judge had rejected the allegation that the timber floor was slippery or dangerous and preferred evidence that both floor surfaces had adequate slip resistance and that the difference in coefficient of friction was insufficient to make the transition dangerous. The respondent was wearing extremely slippery new shoes and was not taking reasonable care for her own safety. It was reasonable for the appellant to assume customers would wear appropriate footwear and not reasonably foreseeable that a customer would walk in shoes as slippery as those worn by the respondent. The mere fact that safety could have been improved by moving racks...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Tort Negligence Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Judgment Finding the Appellant Liable in Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Retail Store' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'foreseeable Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'transition Between Carpet and Timber Flooring']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'personal Injury'] ['slip and Fall in Retail Store' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'foreseeable Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'transition Between Carpet and Timber Flooring']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Tort Negligence Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Judgment Finding the Appellant Liable in Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant breached its duty of care by displaying goods so as to obscure the transition between carpeted and timber flooring.' 'Whether the transition from carpet to timber flooring created a danger which the appellant ought to have rectified.' "Whether the respondent's slippery new shoes and failure to take reasonable care for her own safety affected the assessment of breach."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not breach its duty of care. The trial judge had rejected the allegation that the timber floor was slippery or dangerous and preferred evidence that both floor surfaces had adequate slip resistance and that the difference in coefficient of friction was insufficient to make the transition dangerous. The respondent was wearing extremely slippery new shoes and was not taking reasonable care for her own safety. It was reasonable for the appellant to assume customers would wear appropriate footwear and not reasonably foreseeable that a customer would walk in shoes as slippery as those worn by the respondent. The mere fact that safety could have been improved by moving racks...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Judgment of the District Court set aside.' "In lieu, the plaintiff's proceedings dismissed with costs." "The respondent should pay the costs of the appeal, but have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act."]