Vincent v Woolworths Ltd [2016] NSWCA 40

Vincent v Woolworths Ltd [2016] NSWCA 40

The appeal failed because the primary judge did not err in finding no breach of duty by either respondent. Woolworths owed visiting merchandisers a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury arising out of its operations, but the relevant risk for s 5B was a risk of appreciable personal injury, and the probability of such injury from the commonplace act of stepping from a small safety step near supermarket traffic was very low. Given the expectation that users would exercise ordinary care, the lack of evidence of prior similar appreciable injury, the visibility of the merchandiser and customers, and common supermarket practice, the risk was not shown to be not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Damages Proceedings / Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division Decision Dismissing Claims Against Woolworths Ltd as Occupier and Counterpoint Marketing & Sales Pty Ltd as Employer; Respondents' Cross Claims/cross Appeals Also Before the Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-claims dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'risk of Harm Under S 5 B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'reasonable Precautions' 'common Practice' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'work Injury Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupiers' Liability" "employer's Liability" 'civil Liability'] ['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'risk of Harm Under S 5 B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'reasonable Precautions' 'common Practice' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'work Injury Damages']

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 Negligence Damages Proceedings / Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division Decision Dismissing Claims Against Woolworths Ltd as Occupier and Counterpoint Marketing & Sales Pty Ltd as Employer; Respondents' Cross Claims/cross Appeals Also Before the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths owed a duty of care extending to the circumstances of a visiting merchandiser stepping backwards from a safety step in a supermarket aisle' "Whether the risk of appreciable personal injury from collision between a merchandiser and a customer's trolley was not insignificant for the purposes of s 5B(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)" "Whether a reasonable person in Woolworths' position would have taken precautions such as barriers, a different ladder or an assistant under s 5B(1)(c)" "Whether Counterpoint breached its common law employer's duty of care by permitting the appellant to perform merchandising work using a safety step without additional precautions" 'Whether causation, contributory negligence and apportionment arose if breach were established']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge did not err in finding no breach of duty by either respondent. Woolworths owed visiting merchandisers a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury arising out of its operations, but the relevant risk for s 5B was a risk of appreciable personal injury, and the probability of such injury from the commonplace act of stepping from a small safety step near supermarket traffic was very low. Given the expectation that users would exercise ordinary care, the lack of evidence of prior similar appreciable injury, the visibility of the merchandiser and customers, and common supermarket practice, the risk was not shown to be not...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.' 'The cross-claims filed by the respondents are dismissed with costs.']