Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162

Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162

Although the respondents failed to mop the floor in sections as required—a breach of duty per protocols and reasonable precautions—causation was not established as the appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach (wet soles) was a necessary condition of his fall. Consequently, neither respondent was liable for damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall' "occupiers' Liability" 'standard of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity' 'insurance Contract Interpretation' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'insurance'] ['slip and Fall' "occupiers' Liability" 'standard of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity' 'insurance Contract Interpretation' 'assessment of 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 / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether McDonald's and/or CGU/Holistic breached their duty of care owed to the appellant as an entrant to the premises" "Whether any breach was causative of the appellant's injury" 'Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent' "Indemnity and insurance obligations as between McDonald's, Holistic and CGU" 'Assessment and adequacy of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents failed to mop the floor in sections as required—a breach of duty per protocols and reasonable precautions—causation was not established as the appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach (wet soles) was a necessary condition of his fall. Consequently, neither respondent was liable for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Cross-appeal allowed in part.' 'Orders 3 and 5 made by the District Court on 13 December 2012 set aside and in lieu thereof the second cross-claim is dismissed.' 'First respondent (second cross-respondent) to pay the costs of the second...