Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2024] NSWCA 121

Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2024] NSWCA 121

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in rejecting the alleged additional breaches of duty and correctly found that causation was not established. Mr Cheong was off duty when he left and briefly re-entered the store, Stanley was not responsible for the front of store area and the evidence did not show that the mango was within his line of sight, and no breach by the coffee-counter employee was established. The breaches found by the primary judge in relation to the hourly "service zero" system were not a factual cause of the injury because, even if the required hourly front-of-store inspection had occurred at 5:00 pm, the mango was dropped at about 5:02 pm and Ms...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury Slip and Fall Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Supermarket' "occupier's Duty of Care" 'breach of Duty' 'systems of Inspection and Cleaning' 'factual Causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings and CCTV Footage']
['negligence' 'torts' 'civil Liability' 'appeals'] ['slip and Fall in Supermarket' "occupier's Duty of Care" 'breach of Duty' 'systems of Inspection and Cleaning' 'factual Causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings and CCTV Footage']

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

Negligence Personal Injury Slip and Fall Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths breached its duty of care by failing to implement the "clean as you go" system through employees including Mr Cheong and Stanley.' 'Whether Woolworths was required to allocate additional inspection of the front of store area beyond the systems found by the primary judge.' "Whether the piece of fruit was readily detectable on closer inspection or within an employee's line of sight." "Whether the breaches found by the primary judge were a factual cause of Ms Gomez's injuries under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)." "Whether an occupier's liability for breach of duty to an invitee was analogous to an employer's vicarious liability for an employee's tortious conduct or other wrongful act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in rejecting the alleged additional breaches of duty and correctly found that causation was not established. Mr Cheong was off duty when he left and briefly re-entered the store, Stanley was not responsible for the front of store area and the evidence did not show that the mango was within his line of sight, and no breach by the coffee-counter employee was established. The breaches found by the primary judge in relation to the hourly "service zero" system were not a factual cause of the injury because, even if the required hourly front-of-store inspection had occurred at 5:00 pm, the mango was dropped at about 5:02 pm and Ms...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs."]