Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bright
Case
•
[2015] NSWCA 17
•05 February 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bright [2015] NSWCA 17
[2015] NSWCA 17
05 February 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed against a decision of the District Court that found it liable for negligence. The dispute arose from a slip and fall incident where the plaintiff alleged she had slipped on water on the floor of a Coles supermarket. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established, on the probabilities, that she slipped in water and, if so, whether either or both of the defendants breached their duty of care.
The Court of Appeal considered the significance of CCTV footage, which showed numerous customers walking through the area where the water was alleged to be, without any apparent incident. The judges reasoned that the absence of any other customer slipping or reacting to the alleged water, as depicted in the footage, cast doubt on the plaintiff's assertion that there was a significant amount of water on the floor. The court applied the principles of negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the District Court were set aside. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs. The plaintiff was also ordered to repay certain sums to the appellant, and the appellant was granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.
The Court of Appeal considered the significance of CCTV footage, which showed numerous customers walking through the area where the water was alleged to be, without any apparent incident. The judges reasoned that the absence of any other customer slipping or reacting to the alleged water, as depicted in the footage, cast doubt on the plaintiff's assertion that there was a significant amount of water on the floor. The court applied the principles of negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the District Court were set aside. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs. The plaintiff was also ordered to repay certain sums to the appellant, and the appellant was granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Causation
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Stringer & Stringer v Westfield Shopping Centre MANAGMENT Co (SA) P/L [2017] SADC 35
Cases Citing This Decision
1