McDONALDS AUSTRALIA LIMITED v SALAMEH [1997] NSWCA 198

McDONALDS AUSTRALIA LIMITED v SALAMEH [1997] NSWCA 198

The combination of the positioning of the soap dispenser in a cramped toilet, along with the other existing conditions, created a foreseeable risk of slippery soap reaching the floor and causing injury. The appellant failed to reasonably prevent this risk either by repositioning the dispenser or by providing non-slip flooring. Therefore, the trial judge was entitled to find negligence.

Parties
Appellant: McDonalds Australia Limited; Respondent: Salameh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Liability for Slip and Fall, Premises Liability, Reasonable Foreseeability, Adequacy of Cleaning Systems
Negligence Liability for Slip and Fall Premises Liability Reasonable Foreseeability Adequacy of Cleaning Systems

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

Parties

McDonalds Australia Limited

Appellant

Salameh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the positioning of the soap dispenser constitute negligence?
  2. 2 Was there a causative link between the positioning of the soap dispenser and the respondent's injury?
  3. 3 Was contributory negligence established against the plaintiff?

Ratio Decidendi

The combination of the positioning of the soap dispenser in a cramped toilet, along with the other existing conditions, created a foreseeable risk of slippery soap reaching the floor and causing injury. The appellant failed to reasonably prevent this risk either by repositioning the dispenser or by providing non-slip flooring. Therefore, the trial judge was entitled to find negligence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Ordinary order for costs granted; indemnity costs refused due to de minimis compromise