Vourvahakis v Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Limited [2013] NSWDC 73

Vourvahakis v Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Limited [2013] NSWDC 73

The risk of slipping on a wet, sloping metal expansion joint cover in the car park was foreseeable and not insignificant, but observations that the risk was obvious to any reasonable person, combined with long accident-free history and insufficient evidence that reasonable precautions were practical, feasible, or required, led to a finding that the occupier was not negligent. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own conduct, knowingly stepping onto a slippery surface while wearing unsuitable footwear, amounted to 100% contributory negligence, defeating her claim. The second defendant did not owe the plaintiff a direct duty to identify and report every risk to lawful entrants; its role was to...

Parties
Plaintiff: Stella Vourvahakis; First Defendant: Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Limited; Second Defendant: InteRisk Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Principal Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for both defendants; cross-claims dismissed; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupier's Liability, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Obvious Risk, Duty of Care, Slip and Fall, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupier's Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Obvious Risk Duty of Care Slip and Fall +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stella Vourvahakis

Plaintiff

Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Limited

First Defendant

InteRisk Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Principal Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupier (first defendant) breached duty of care to the plaintiff under circumstances of a slip and fall on an expansion joint cover in a car park
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if so, whether it was breached
  3. 3 Whether the risk was foreseeable, 'not insignificant', and whether reasonable precautions were required under s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of slipping on a wet, sloping metal expansion joint cover in the car park was foreseeable and not insignificant, but observations that the risk was obvious to any reasonable person, combined with long accident-free history and insufficient evidence that reasonable precautions were practical, feasible, or required, led to a finding that the occupier was not negligent. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own conduct, knowingly stepping onto a slippery surface while wearing unsuitable footwear, amounted to 100% contributory negligence, defeating her claim. The second defendant did not owe the plaintiff a direct duty to identify and report every risk to lawful entrants; its role was to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for both defendants; cross-claims dismissed; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff
  • Verdict and judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff