Woolworths Ltd v Ryder [2014] NSWCA 223

Woolworths Ltd v Ryder [2014] NSWCA 223

There was no basis in principle or policy for the broad duty of care imposed by the primary judge on Woolworths to prevent harm from use or misuse of products by third parties in a common area outside its control. Reasonable foreseeability alone is not sufficient for duty, and imposing such an obligation would create an intolerable burden of liability for occupiers. Therefore, Woolworths owed no relevant duty in the circumstances and the judgment below was set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for Woolworths; respondent to pay costs of appellant.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' "occupier's Liability" 'retail Premises Liability']
['torts'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' "occupier's Liability" 'retail Premises Liability']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths, as operator of a supermarket, owed a duty of care to a pedestrian in the adjacent common area of a shopping centre in respect of a hazard created by use of a product purchased at the supermarket' "Whether an employee's alleged admission was supported by evidence" 'Whether, assuming a duty of care existed, Woolworths breached its duty']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis in principle or policy for the broad duty of care imposed by the primary judge on Woolworths to prevent harm from use or misuse of products by third parties in a common area outside its control. Reasonable foreseeability alone is not sufficient for duty, and imposing such an obligation would create an intolerable burden of liability for occupiers. Therefore, Woolworths owed no relevant duty in the circumstances and the judgment below was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for Woolworths; respondent to pay costs of appellant.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Orders 1 and 2 made by the primary judge on 25 July 2013 set aside.' "In lieu thereof: (1) Judgment for Woolworths; (2) Plaintiff to pay Woolworths' costs." "Respondent to pay Woolworths' costs of the appeal." "Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)."]