Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited

The appeal in *Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited* concerned a slip and fall injury sustained by the appellant, Ms. Gomez, within a Woolworths supermarket. Ms. Gomez alleged that Woolworths breached its duty of care owed to her as an invitee, leading to her injury. The primary dispute revolved around the adequacy of Woolworths' systems for inspecting and cleaning the store, particularly the area where the incident occurred, and whether employees failed to adhere to these systems.

The court was required to determine whether Woolworths breached its duty of care to Ms. Gomez. Specifically, the appeal considered whether the existing systems of periodic inspection and cleaning were adequate, whether employees failed to implement these systems, and whether reasonable precautions would have necessitated an additional system of hourly inspection and cleaning of the front of the store area. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether Ms. Gomez had proven factual causation under section 5D of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), meaning she had to demonstrate that her injury would not have occurred had there been no negligent act or omission by Woolworths. The appeal also touched upon the nature of an occupier's liability and the ability of an appellate court to draw inferences from CCTV footage.

The appellate court, comprising Bell CJ, Gleeson and Adamson JJA, dismissed the appeal. Their reasoning affirmed the trial judge's findings regarding the adequacy of Woolworths' inspection and cleaning systems and the lack of proven breaches. The court found that Ms. Gomez had not established that the existing systems were insufficient or that employees had failed to implement them. Crucially, the court concluded that Ms. Gomez had failed to prove factual causation, determining that she had not demonstrated that the injury would have been avoided even if a more stringent cleaning regime had been in place. The appellate court considered itself in the same position as the trial judge to draw inferences from the CCTV footage.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.