Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer & Ors [2006] NSWCA 45

Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer & Ors [2006] NSWCA 45

Although the appellant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a contractor under its control, the evidence did not establish that any available, reasonable precautions or alternative systems would have prevented the injury from a random, irrational attacker. Accordingly, neither breach of duty nor causation were established, warranting dismissal of the claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; proceedings against appellant dismissed.
Legal Topics
['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'contractors' 'causation' 'breach of Duty']
['tort Law'] ['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'contractors' 'causation' 'breach of Duty']

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Coca Cola owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, a contractor, against violence from third parties while servicing vending machines.' 'Whether there existed a breach of duty by failing to provide a safe system of work.' 'Whether any reasonable alternative system or precaution could have prevented the injury sustained by the plaintiff.' 'Whether causation was established between the alleged breaches and the injury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a contractor under its control, the evidence did not establish that any available, reasonable precautions or alternative systems would have prevented the injury from a random, irrational attacker. Accordingly, neither breach of duty nor causation were established, warranting dismissal of the claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; proceedings against appellant dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed against the first three respondents.' 'Orders of Hulme J against the appellant in favour of the first three respondents set aside.' 'In lieu, order that the proceedings against the appellant be dismissed with costs.' "Order that the first, second and third respondents pay the appellant's costs of...