Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5

Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5

Where a hazardous item might have been deposited at any time and the only reasonable care required was periodic inspection, absence of such a system—combined with proof that periodic inspections were not undertaken—permits a probabilistic inference that the hazard (chip) was likely present long enough to have been detected and removed by a reasonable cleaning system; thus, the lack of such a system was a necessary condition of the appellant's injury. The High Court found the appellant discharged the onus of proof for factual causation and causation was established under s 5D(1)(a).

Parties
Appellant: Kathryn Strong; First Respondent: Woolworths Limited T/as Big W; Second Respondent: CPT Manager Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From the NSW Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Slip and Fall Liability, Burden of Proof, Systems of Inspection and Cleaning
Tort Law Negligence Causation Slip and Fall Liability Burden of Proof Systems of Inspection and Cleaning

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Strong

Appellant

Woolworths Limited T/as Big W

First Respondent

CPT Manager Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From the NSW Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Woolworths' failure to institute and maintain a system for periodic inspection and cleaning caused the appellant's injury
  2. 2 Whether factual causation under s 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) was established
  3. 3 Burden of proof and evidential burden in causation of slip and fall cases

Ratio Decidendi

Where a hazardous item might have been deposited at any time and the only reasonable care required was periodic inspection, absence of such a system—combined with proof that periodic inspections were not undertaken—permits a probabilistic inference that the hazard (chip) was likely present long enough to have been detected and removed by a reasonable cleaning system; thus, the lack of such a system was a necessary condition of the appellant's injury. The High Court found the appellant discharged the onus of proof for factual causation and causation was established under s 5D(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Orders of NSW Court of Appeal made on 2 November 2010 set aside