Kime v Vicinity Centres PM Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] NSWDC 113

Kime v Vicinity Centres PM Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] NSWDC 113

Both defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care and were negligent by failing to take adequate precautions against the identified risk of tripping on a kinked wet weather mat, including an inadequate inspection regime and failure to warn. The risk was not an obvious risk to the plaintiff. No contributory negligence was established. Damages were assessed at $172,554. Liability is apportioned 60% to the first defendant and 40% to the second defendant according to their culpability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants; damages and apportionment orders made; costs to be determined.
Legal Topics
["occupier's Liability" 'contributory Negligence' 'damages Assessment' 'personal Injury' 'statutory Interpretation']
['torts' 'negligence'] ["occupier's Liability" 'contributory Negligence' 'damages Assessment' 'personal Injury' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Personal Injury Negligence / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendants owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?' 'Were the defendants negligent in managing the placement and supervision of wet weather mats?' 'Was the risk of harm from kinked mats obvious to the plaintiff?' 'Was there contributory negligence by the plaintiff?' 'What is the correct assessment of damages?' 'How should liability be apportioned between defendants?']

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care and were negligent by failing to take adequate precautions against the identified risk of tripping on a kinked wet weather mat, including an inadequate inspection regime and failure to warn. The risk was not an obvious risk to the plaintiff. No contributory negligence was established. Damages were assessed at $172,554. Liability is apportioned 60% to the first defendant and 40% to the second defendant according to their culpability.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants; damages and apportionment orders made; costs to be determined.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants in the sum of $172,554.' "On the cross-claims, the first defendant is to pay 60 per cent of the plaintiff's judgment and the second defendant is to pay 40 per cent of the plaintiff's judgment." 'The court will hear the parties on the appropriate...