Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWDC 221

Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWDC 221

Although defendant breached duty of care by failing to enforce adequate inspection and cleaning systems of the store entrance area, the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the hazard arose after scheduled inspections and would not have been detected in the normal course, thus the breach did not cause the plaintiff's injury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for defendant.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall' 'duty of Care' 'civil Liability' 'inspection and Cleaning Systems' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['slip and Fall' 'duty of Care' 'civil Liability' 'inspection and Cleaning Systems' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' '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

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff?' 'What is the risk of harm against which it is alleged the defendant ought to have taken reasonable precautions?' 'What are the reasonable precautions the defendant ought to have taken to address the risk of harm caused by items being dropped on the floor?' 'Whether the defendant failed to take any or all of the reasonable precautions found?' 'If the defendant failed to take any or all of those reasonable precautions, whether that failure caused the injury suffered by the plaintiff?' 'If liability is established against the defendant, whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence?' 'What injuries and disabilities does the plaintiff have as a result of the accident?' "What is the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded under the various heads for the plaintiff's injuries and continuing disabilities?"]

Ratio Decidendi

Although defendant breached duty of care by failing to enforce adequate inspection and cleaning systems of the store entrance area, the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the hazard arose after scheduled inspections and would not have been detected in the normal course, thus the breach did not cause the plaintiff's injury.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for defendant.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings against the defendant are dismissed.' 'Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed." 'Leave is granted to either party to apply within 14 days to vary the costs order in (3) above.']