Walker v Portmans Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 46

Walker v Portmans Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 46

The Defendant breached its duty of care by vacuuming during trading hours and allowing a vacuum cleaner cord lying on the shop floor to be pulled taut without adequate warning to the Plaintiff, creating a reasonably foreseeable tripping risk that caused the Plaintiff's injuries. The Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because she saw the loose stationary cord, reasonably proceeded to step over it, and was not warned of the impending movement. Damages were assessed at $544,059 under the pleaded heads of loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim for Damages Arising From Occupier's Liability / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $544,059; Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['trip and Fall in Retail Premises' 'electrical Vacuum Cleaner Cord' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity' 'domestic or Attendant Care' 'out of Pocket Expenses']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'damages'] ['trip and Fall in Retail Premises' 'electrical Vacuum Cleaner Cord' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity' 'domestic or Attendant Care' 'out of Pocket Expenses']

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

Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim for Damages Arising From Occupier's Liability / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the Defendant breach its duty of care to the Plaintiff?' 'If the Defendant was in breach of its duty of care, was there contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff?' 'What damages should be assessed under multiple heads of damage?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant breached its duty of care by vacuuming during trading hours and allowing a vacuum cleaner cord lying on the shop floor to be pulled taut without adequate warning to the Plaintiff, creating a reasonably foreseeable tripping risk that caused the Plaintiff's injuries. The Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because she saw the loose stationary cord, reasonably proceeded to step over it, and was not warned of the impending movement. Damages were assessed at $544,059 under the pleaded heads of loss.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $544,059; Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ["The entry of a verdict and judgment in the Plaintiff's favour in the sum of $544,059." "The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs." 'Leave is granted to the parties to apply on 7 days notice should any further orders be required.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']