Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7

The relationship between the occupier (appellant) and the lawful entrant (respondent) itself is sufficient to give rise to a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury; the special duty to invitees is no different in content from the general duty owed under the law of negligence. The appeal was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
["occupier's Liability" 'general Duty of Care' 'invitees and Licensees' 'standard of Care']
['torts' 'negligence'] ["occupier's Liability" 'general Duty of Care' 'invitees and Licensees' 'standard of Care']

Source-derived case record

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an occupier's liability to an invitee is governed by a special duty or the general duty of care under the law of negligence" 'Whether the trial judge erred in not considering the general duty of care' "Whether the existence of a general duty affects the content of the occupier's obligation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between the occupier (appellant) and the lawful entrant (respondent) itself is sufficient to give rise to a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury; the special duty to invitees is no different in content from the general duty owed under the law of negligence. The appeal was dismissed because the Full Court was correct to order a new trial on the basis that the general duty of care applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']