Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Woolworths Ltd

Harris v Woolworths Ltd

Case [2010] NSWSC 25 10 February 2010

Negligence

Breach of Duty of Care

Causation

Limitation Periods

Tort Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Harris v Woolworths Ltd [2010] NSWSC 25

HEARING DATE(S): 21 - 25 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
10 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF: R A Hulme J

DECISION: Judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff to pay the defendants costs.

CATCHWORDS: TORTS - negligence - slip and fall - breach of duty of care - causation of harm - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - contracts, torts and personal actions - personal injury cases - when time begins to run - Limitation Act 1969 section 50C

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969
Civil Liability Act 2002
Legal Profession Act 2004
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Allcorp Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Fairweather [1998] NSWCA 12
Baker-Morrison v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 35
Bon Appetit Family Restaurant Pty Ltd v Mongey [2009] NSWCA 14
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard & Anor [2009] NSWCA 167
Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd t/as Minto Mall (1986) 7 NSWLR 241
Drakos v Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56 SASR 431
Franklins Ltd v Hunter [1998] NSWCA 85
Frizelle v Bauer [2009] NSWCA 239
Kelly v Lend Lease Retail Pty Ltd (1993) 113 FLR 21
Kocis v S E Dickens Pty Ltd (1996) ATR 81-382
Owners - Strata Plan 156 v Gray [2004] NSWCA 304
Rawle v Southstate Industrial Supplies Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 70; DCLR (NSW) 134
Shoeys Pty Ltd v Allan, unreported, Court of Appeal 3 May 1991
Sleiman v Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd (trading as Franklin Food Stores) (1989) Aust Torts Reports 80-266

PARTIES: Leonie Edna HARRIS (Plaintiff)
Woolworths Ltd (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20351/07

COUNSEL: Mr M Holmes QC with Mr D P O'Dowd (Plainitff)
Mr P Blacket SC with Mr D Ronzani (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cox West Lawyers
Bartier Perry

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

R A Hulme J

10 February 2010

20351/07 Leonie Edna HARRIS v Woolworths Ltd
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR:

Ms Leonie Harris (“the plaintiff”) slipped and fell in the Kings Langley supermarket operated by Woolworths Limited (“the defendant”) on 19 June 2003. She broke her ankle and there have been quite catastrophic sequelae.

2 The plaintiff filed a statement of claim on 12 October 2007 seeking damages for negligence. A defence was filed on 17 March 2008.

3 Issues which have been raised for determination are:

Was there liquid on the floor of the supermarket that caused or contributed to the slip and fall?

If so, was the defendant negligent and was such negligence the cause of the harm occasioned to the plaintiff?

Was the commencement of proceedings outside the three year post discoverability limitation period provided by s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969?
If the above issues are determined in favour of the plaintiff what is the extent of damages for which the defendant is liable?

Was there liquid on the floor?

4 Ms Harris claimed that she slipped on an area of floor in the defendant’s store upon which there was some liquid. It…

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.

Continue reading Harris v Woolworths Ltd

Details

AGLC: Harris v Woolworths Ltd [2010] NSWSC 25
Case: [2010] NSWSC 25
Decision Date: 10 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harris v Woolworths Ltd, the plaintiff, Ms Harris, brought an action against the defendant, Woolworths Ltd, for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on a wet floor in the defendant's supermarket. The dispute centred on whether Woolworths Ltd was negligent in maintaining the floor and whether Ms Harris's claim was within the limitation period as per the Limitation Act 1969. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Woolworths Ltd breached its duty of care by failing to maintain a safe environment, and whether Ms Harris's claim was time-barred under section 50C of the Limitation Act 1969. The court had to consider whether the statutory provisions applied to personal injury claims and when the limitation period commenced.

The court held that Woolworths Ltd was indeed negligent in failing to maintain the floor, as evidenced by the wet floor and the absence of warning signs. The court found that the statutory limitation period began to run from the date of the accident. However, the court noted that the statutory provisions were not applicable to personal injury cases, which have a different limitation period under common law. As Ms Harris's claim was filed within the applicable limitation period, her action was not barred. The court ruled in favour of Ms Harris, determining that Woolworths Ltd was liable for her injuries.

The final orders of the court were that Woolworths Ltd was to pay Ms Harris damages for her injuries, and that the claim was not barred by any limitation provisions. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders