Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20

Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20

The defendant was negligent because it knew wet trolleys were being brought into the supermarket and would drip water onto the vinyl floor in the trolley bay, creating a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of customers slipping. Its ad hoc system of intermittent mopping, occasional observation and movable warning cones was not a reasonable response to that risk, particularly when more effective precautions such as adequate supervision, warnings or absorbent matting were available and not unduly burdensome. The plaintiff proved that water on the floor caused his fall and injuries, and the defendant failed to prove contributory negligence. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim for Occupier's Liability Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350, with costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Supermarket' 'wet Vinyl Floor From Rainwater on Shopping Trolleys' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation Under Civil Liability Act 2002' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Non Economic Loss' 'future Domestic Assistance' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'past Out of Pocket Expenses']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'damages'] ['slip and Fall in Supermarket' 'wet Vinyl Floor From Rainwater on Shopping Trolleys' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation Under Civil Liability Act 2002' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Non Economic Loss' 'future Domestic Assistance' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'past Out of Pocket Expenses']

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 Claim for Occupier's Liability Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant breached its acknowledged duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to implement reasonable precautions against water on the supermarket floor from wet shopping trolleys.' "Whether the presence of water on the vinyl floor caused the plaintiff's fall and injuries." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by not looking, by wearing worn thongs, or by failing to take care in wet conditions.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, future domestic assistance, future treatment expenses and past out-of-pocket expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent because it knew wet trolleys were being brought into the supermarket and would drip water onto the vinyl floor in the trolley bay, creating a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of customers slipping. Its ad hoc system of intermittent mopping, occasional observation and movable warning cones was not a reasonable response to that risk, particularly when more effective precautions such as adequate supervision, warnings or absorbent matting were available and not unduly burdensome. The plaintiff proved that water on the floor caused his fall and injuries, and the defendant failed to prove contributory negligence. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350, with costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350;' 'The defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered;' 'The exhibits may be returned;' 'Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.']