Taylor v Woolworths Limited [2009] NSWDC 311

Taylor v Woolworths Limited [2009] NSWDC 311

The defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff because the fall occurred on a speed hump in a common area of the shopping centre that was not leased, occupied or controlled by the defendant; the leases allocated responsibility for repair and lighting of common areas to the lessor; there was no evidence the defendant knew the relevant light was not operating, knew the plaintiff would walk to the loading dock, or had a history of incidents requiring a warning; and allocating responsibility for lighting to the lessor was a reasonable response to the risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2009
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Occupiers Liability Personal Injury Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['trip and Fall' 'common Areas of Shopping Centre' 'control of Premises' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'indemnity Costs' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'occupiers Liability' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure Costs'] ['trip and Fall' 'common Areas of Shopping Centre' 'control of Premises' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'indemnity Costs' '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

District Court Civil Occupiers Liability Personal Injury Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant was liable as occupier or controller of the common area where the plaintiff fell.' 'Whether the defendant breached any duty of care by directing the plaintiff to collect goods from the loading dock via an area with inoperative lighting.' 'Whether the defendant knew or ought to have known of the lighting failure or any relevant danger or trap.' 'Whether Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Limited 221 CLR 234 assisted the plaintiff.' 'What damages would have been appropriate if liability had been established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff because the fall occurred on a speed hump in a common area of the shopping centre that was not leased, occupied or controlled by the defendant; the leases allocated responsibility for repair and lighting of common areas to the lessor; there was no evidence the defendant knew the relevant light was not operating, knew the plaintiff would walk to the loading dock, or had a history of incidents requiring a warning; and allocating responsibility for lighting to the lessor was a reasonable response to the risk.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the defendant.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on an ordinary basis up to and including 2 March 2009 and on an indemnity basis thereafter." 'The exhibits are returned.']