Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge

Link copied
Case Copied 51 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge [2018] NSWCA 183
Hearing dates: 4 July 2018
Decision date: 17 August 2018
Before: Leeming and Payne JJA at [1];
Emmett AJA at [38]
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed in part.

 

2. Set aside the judgment entered on 19 December 2017 in the amount of $769,381, and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $577,035 (being 75% of the amount earlier ordered).

 

3. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

 4. The appellant to pay two thirds of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE – occupier’s liability – customer slipped and fell on wet surface of supermarket carpark – whether risk of harm was foreseeable – where store manager had described wet carpark as incident waiting to happen – whether risk of harm could be identified by reference to injury sustained

  NEGLIGENCE – contributory negligence – plaintiff slipped and fell when attending to his mobile phone – primary judge found no contributory negligence – challenge to findings that responding to mobile phone was momentary inattention with no causal connection to slip – appeal allowed in part and finding of 25% contributory negligence made
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5R
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 9
Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.53
Cases Cited: Agresta v Agresta [2010] NSWCA 330
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski; Avopiling Pty Ltd v The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2018] NSWCA 146
Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220
Garzo v Liverpool / Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151
Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552; [2003] HCA 34
Kuhl v Zürich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; [1991] HCA 12
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306; [1984] HCA 60
Meakes v Nominal Defendant [2011] NSWDC 9
Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66; 60 MVR 380
Nominal Defendant v Rooskov [2012] NSWCA 43; 60 MVR 350
Perisher Blue Pty Ltd v Nair-Smith (2015) 90 NSWLR 1; [2015] NSWCA 90
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Port Macquarie Hastings Council v Mooney [2014] NSWCA 156; [2014] Aust Torts Rep 82-172
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42
Southern Colour (Vic) Pty Ltd v Parr [2017] VSCA 310
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24; [1964] HCA 16
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller (2015) 91 NSWLR 752; [2015] NSWCA 320
Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWCA 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a judgment of the primary judge who found Coles liable for negligence after a customer, Mr. Bridge, slipped and fell in a wet supermarket carpark. The dispute concerned whether Coles owed a duty of care to Mr. Bridge, whether that duty was breached, and the extent to which Mr. Bridge's own conduct contributed to his injuries.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the risk of harm to a customer slipping on a wet supermarket carpark surface was foreseeable and whether Coles had breached its duty of care to prevent such harm. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the primary judge erred in finding no contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Bridge, particularly in light of evidence that he was attending to his mobile phone at the time of the incident.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the risk of a customer slipping on a wet carpark was indeed foreseeable, noting that the store manager had described the wet carpark as an "incident waiting to happen." This observation, coupled with the general knowledge of the dangers posed by wet surfaces, established a breach of duty. However, the Court disagreed with the primary judge's finding of no contributory negligence. The Court held that Mr. Bridge's act of attending to his mobile phone, even if momentary, constituted a failure to take reasonable care for his own safety and had a causal connection to his fall. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with the judgment in favour of Mr. Bridge being reduced by 25% to reflect his contributory negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the judgment entered on 19 December 2017 in the amount of $769,381, and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $577,035 (being 75% of the amount earlier ordered).

3. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

4. The appellant to pay two thirds of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.