Bridge v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1800

Bridge v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1800

Coles breached its duty of care by failing to treat the smooth, polished concrete surface with a non-slip coating or establish a non-slip pedestrian walkway, given constructive knowledge of the foreseeable and not insignificant risk that customers could slip and suffer injury when the surface was wet; such a...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
["occupiers' Liability" 'negligence' 'slip and Fall' 'damages' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury'] ["occupiers' Liability" 'negligence' 'slip and Fall' 'damages' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence']

Source-derived case record

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

Negligence Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd breached its duty of care as occupier to the plaintiff resulting in personal injury' 'Whether the risk of slipping on wet, polished concrete was foreseeable and not insignificant' 'Whether Coles failed to take reasonable precautions against a foreseeable risk' 'Whether contributory negligence applied due to footwear or distraction' 'Quantum of damages for non-economic and economic loss']

Ratio Decidendi

Coles breached its duty of care by failing to treat the smooth, polished concrete surface with a non-slip coating or establish a non-slip pedestrian walkway, given constructive knowledge of the foreseeable and not insignificant risk that customers could slip and suffer injury when the surface was wet; such a precaution was reasonable, relatively inexpensive, and did not require structural change beyond Coles' power as lessee. There was no contributory negligence as the risk was not obvious to the plaintiff, who acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $760,283' 'Liberty to apply in respect of any claim of interest' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 20 June 2017, and on an indemnity basis from 21 June 2017."]