Cottee v Franklins Self Serve Pty Ltd - [1995] QCA 524

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 91 of 1995

Brisbane

[Cottee v. Franklins and Anor]

BETWEEN:

JODIE LYNN COTTEE

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

FRANKLINS SELF-SERVE PTY LTD

(First Defendant) Appellant
Macrossan CJ McPherson JA Moynihan J

Judgment delivered 28/11/1995

S	eparate Reasons for Judgment of each member of the Court, concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - Respondent injured in attempt to prevent loaded shopping trolley from collapsing in supermarket carpark - whether system of checking trolleys for defects was adequate - whether system which would have revealed defect existed.
CONTRACT - Contractual bailment - unilateral contract - whether there was implied term of fitness.
Counsel:	Mr J.A. McDougall for the appellant Mr M. Martin for the respondent.
Solicitors:	McInnes Wilson and Jenson for the appellant. Baker Johnson for the respondent.
Hearing date:	03/08/1995
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 524
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 91 of 1995

Brisbane

Before Macrossan CJ

McPherson JA
Moynihan J

[Cottee v. Franklins and Anor]

BETWEEN:

JODIE LYNN COTTEE

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

FRANKLINS SELF-SERVE PTY LTD

(First Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Judgment delivered 28/11/1995

The appellant, which was the first defendant below, appeals against a judgment entered against it at the suit of the plaintiff, a customer at its Woodridge store. The quantum of damages had not been in dispute. The respondent succeeded on the issue of liability and a judgment for $25,000 and costs was entered in her favour.

The respondent sued because she suffered injury when a shopping trolley collapsed when being used in the carpark attached to the store. The respondent had purchased goods in the store and being supplied with a trolley by a servant of the appellant was pushing it, containing the goods and her six month old child, towards her parked car. The carpark was owned by and under the control of the second defendant which also had been sued but successfully resisted the claim so that the action against it was dismissed below, although with no order made in respect of its costs.

It was one of the front wheels of the laden trolley that collapsed and it did so without prior warning when the trolley was being pushed over a speed bump. The collapse caused it to capsize and the respondent was injured while trying to restrain its toppling over.

The layout of the carpark area permitted vehicles to be parked so that the fronts or backs of individual cars reached right up to the ends of the constructed speed bumps. For customers using trolleys in the carpark, this layout did not conveniently permit them to go around rather than over the bumps when the park became filled with parked cars. It was accepted that the respondent had, in practical terms, no choice but to push her trolley over the speed bump on the way to her vehicle. It was not an issue on the appeal that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cottee v Franklins Self Serve Pty Ltd 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: [1995] QCA 524
Decision Date: 28/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Cottee v Franklins Self Serve Pty Ltd was heard before the Court, which was tasked with determining the liability of the defendant, a supermarket, for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in an incident involving a shopping trolley. The plaintiff had attempted to prevent a loaded shopping trolley from collapsing in the supermarket's carpark, resulting in injuries. The core dispute centred around whether the supermarket had an adequate system in place to check the trolleys for defects, and if a more effective system, which could have identified the defect, was available at the time.

The court was required to address several key legal issues, including the standard of care owed by the supermarket to its customers in terms of ensuring the safety of shopping trolleys, and whether the supermarket's system for checking trolleys for defects was sufficient. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an alternative system existed that could have revealed the defect in the trolley, and whether the supermarket had a duty to implement such a system. The central question was whether the supermarket's failure to adequately check the trolley for defects constituted a breach of its duty of care to the plaintiff.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the supermarket's policies and practices concerning the inspection of trolleys, and evaluated whether these measures were reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the supermarket had an existing system for checking trolleys but determined that this system was not sufficient to prevent the incident. The court further concluded that a more effective system, which would have revealed the defect in the trolley, was available at the time. Consequently, the court held that the supermarket had breached its duty of care by failing to implement this alternative system, thereby contributing to the plaintiff's injuries. The court found the supermarket liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Orders