Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 60

Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 60

The appeal was dismissed because there was no error in the primary judge’s finding that Target did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the spillage, and it was not unreasonable for Target to rely on the cleaning system implemented by the owner; the evidence did not support the applicant’s contention that Target should have done more by way of constant inspection or taken discovery of the spill prior to the accident.

Parties
Appellant: Trina Reid; Respondent: Target Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupiers’ Liability, Personal Injury, Inferences (jones V Dunkel)
Torts Evidence Negligence Duty of Care Occupiers’ Liability Personal Injury Inferences (jones V Dunkel)

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trina Reid

Appellant

Target Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge should have drawn Jones v Dunkel inferences from Target's failure to call the store greeter
  2. 2 Whether inferences should have been drawn regarding the presence and duration of the spillage in the absence of oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether Target owed a duty of care to monitor the area outside its leased premises for persons carrying beverages

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no error in the primary judge’s finding that Target did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the spillage, and it was not unreasonable for Target to rely on the cleaning system implemented by the owner; the evidence did not support the applicant’s contention that Target should have done more by way of constant inspection or taken discovery of the spill prior to the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.