Hart v Veloce Expresso Pty Ltd (t/as Azucar Café) [2019] NSWDC 251

Hart v Veloce Expresso Pty Ltd (t/as Azucar Café) [2019] NSWDC 251

The plaintiff's claim failed because the first defendant was not responsible for the thoroughfare, which was a common area under the control of Sydney Airport Corporation Limited and cleaned by the second defendant. The evidence did not establish that the first defendant caused the water hazard or that the area had been wet-mopped by it; if wet-mopping occurred, it was most likely done by the second defendant. Although the first defendant knew or ought to have known of the risk and the risk was not insignificant, a reasonable café operator in the first defendant's position, with no control over or cleaning responsibility for the thoroughfare, would not have taken the pleaded precautions....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the first defendant.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall' 'public Thoroughfare' 'water Hazard' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages']
['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Liability' 'work Health and Safety'] ['slip and Fall' 'public Thoroughfare' 'water Hazard' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' '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

Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant had care, control, management or responsibility for the thoroughfare where the plaintiff fell.' 'Whether the first defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care to prevent her slipping in the thoroughfare or to warn her of that risk.' 'Whether the first defendant created the water hazard by wet-mopping or was otherwise responsible for the water being on the floor.' "Whether a reasonable person in the first defendant's position would have taken the pleaded precautions under s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)." 'Whether the risk was obvious and therefore attracted no duty to warn under s 5H of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' 'If liability were established, whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and the amount of any damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim failed because the first defendant was not responsible for the thoroughfare, which was a common area under the control of Sydney Airport Corporation Limited and cleaned by the second defendant. The evidence did not establish that the first defendant caused the water hazard or that the area had been wet-mopped by it; if wet-mopping occurred, it was most likely done by the second defendant. Although the first defendant knew or ought to have known of the risk and the risk was not insignificant, a reasonable café operator in the first defendant's position, with no control over or cleaning responsibility for the thoroughfare, would not have taken the pleaded precautions....

Court Disposition

Verdict for the first defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the first defendant.' "Plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs."]