Buljat v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ACTCA 71
•16 December 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Buljat v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] ACTCA 71
[2022] ACTCA 71
16 December 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Ms Buljat, appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against findings of liability and damages made by the primary judge in her personal injury claim against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd. Ms Buljat had slipped and fallen in a Coles supermarket after stepping on a grape, sustaining injuries.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Coles did not breach its duty of care to Ms Buljat, and whether the primary judge erred in assessing damages, particularly in relation to the appellant's subsequent development of deep vein thrombosis. The appeal focused on the adequacy of Coles' system for inspecting and cleaning its supermarket floors to prevent hazards like fallen grapes.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the issue of liability, finding that Coles had breached its duty of care. The court reasoned that Coles' "clean as you go" system, which relied on all staff to identify hazards incidentally during their duties without dedicated hazard-spotting staff or timed inspections, was insufficient to constitute reasonable care. The court noted that the store manager acknowledged past incidents of customers falling on grapes and that grapes were a common item for slips. However, the court upheld the primary judge's decision regarding damages, limiting them to the date of discovery of the deep vein thrombosis, as it was not established that the fall caused the thrombosis, and extending liability due to the appellant's subsequent hypochondria was not warranted.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Coles did not breach its duty of care to Ms Buljat, and whether the primary judge erred in assessing damages, particularly in relation to the appellant's subsequent development of deep vein thrombosis. The appeal focused on the adequacy of Coles' system for inspecting and cleaning its supermarket floors to prevent hazards like fallen grapes.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the issue of liability, finding that Coles had breached its duty of care. The court reasoned that Coles' "clean as you go" system, which relied on all staff to identify hazards incidentally during their duties without dedicated hazard-spotting staff or timed inspections, was insufficient to constitute reasonable care. The court noted that the store manager acknowledged past incidents of customers falling on grapes and that grapes were a common item for slips. However, the court upheld the primary judge's decision regarding damages, limiting them to the date of discovery of the deep vein thrombosis, as it was not established that the fall caused the thrombosis, and extending liability due to the appellant's subsequent hypochondria was not warranted.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Employment Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Breach
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Causation
-
Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Dunn v Yeperenye Pty. Limited [2025] NTSC 55
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited
[2024] NSWCA 121
Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited
[2023] NSWDC 221
Dunn v Yeperenye Pty. Limited
[2025] NTSC 55
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
2
Buljat v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
[2022] ACTSC 47
Prasad v Woolworths Limited
[2017] NSWDC 79
Fatma Abdel Razzak v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWDC 183