Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara [2024] NSWCA 249

Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara [2024] NSWCA 249

Kmart breached its duty of care by not implementing a mandatory system prohibiting use of standard trolleys for heavy, oversized items and instead requiring such items to be collected at the loading dock, as a reasonable person in its position would have done given the foreseeable risk and trifling burden. Kmart’s negligence was a necessary condition of the respondent’s injuries.

Parties
Appellant: Kmart Australia Limited; Respondent: Rita Marmara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Occupier's Liability, Retail Safety, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Evidence Admissibility
Tort Law Negligence Occupier's Liability Retail Safety Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Evidence Admissibility

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kmart Australia Limited

Appellant

Rita Marmara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the trial judge err in admitting into evidence the expert report?
  2. 2 Was there a sufficient system in place to assist customers with heavy or oversized items?
  3. 3 Did Kmart breach its duty of care under s 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)?

Ratio Decidendi

Kmart breached its duty of care by not implementing a mandatory system prohibiting use of standard trolleys for heavy, oversized items and instead requiring such items to be collected at the loading dock, as a reasonable person in its position would have done given the foreseeable risk and trifling burden. Kmart’s negligence was a necessary condition of the respondent’s injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.