Janine Hall v Coles Myer Limited - [2005] ACTSC 108

JANINE HALL v COLES MYER LIMITED [2005] ACTSC 108 (4 November 2005)

NEGLIGENCE – personal injury – slip and fall – supermarket – liability of occupier – whether plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence.
DAMAGES - personal injury – injury to sacroiliac joint – injury to L5-S1 facet joint – no question of principle.

Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Limited (1996) 7 NSWLR 241
Mercouris v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Company Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 79
Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2000) 206 CLR 512

National Health Act 1953 (Cth), s99AA

National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960

No. SC 13 of 2004

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 4 November 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 13 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:JANINE HALL
Plaintiff

AND:COLES MYER LIMITED
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  4 November 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $66,500.

The plaintiff in this action claims damages for personal injury resulting from a slip and fall in the defendant’s Coles supermarket at Chisholm, a Canberra suburb, at about 2.30 pm on Tuesday 24 November 1998.

The plaintiff was born on 21 May 1963 and was 35 at the time of the fall. She is now 42 years of age.

Liability

The plaintiff went to the supermarket and selected a few items for purchase, which she placed in a plastic supermarket basket. She walked along the dairy aisle towards the pet food area. The aisle was partially blocked by a stock trolley at a right angle to the shelves. The trolley was loaded with boxes of stock so that the plaintiff could not see through or past it. She walked out and around the trolley, and as she did so, she slipped and fell. Her right leg went out from under her, and she fell heavily on her right buttock. Her shoe broke. She was not immediately able to get up, and she sat on the floor for a few moments. Her clothing was slightly wet (though not stained), and she realised that she had slipped in some liquid on the floor. She had no recollection of the liquid being of a different colour from the floor, and I accept that it was either clear or a similar colour to the vinyl tiles which constituted the floor surface.

After a time, the plaintiff picked herself up and noticed behind the trolley a yellow plastic cone with wording cautioning of a wet or slippery floor. A woman, presumably another customer, offered to help the plaintiff, but she declined. The woman moved the sign on to the area of the spillage. The plaintiff went to the checkout and told the operator that she had fallen over and hurt herself, and pointed out the location of her fall. She suggested that the spillage should be cleaned up. She then left the store and went out to her car where she…

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 Janine Hall v Coles Myer Limited

Details

AGLC: Janine Hall v Coles Myer Limited [2005] ACTSC 108
Case: [2005] ACTSC 108
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Janine Hall v Coles Myer Limited [2005] ACTSC 108 (4 November 2005) involves a personal injury claim filed by Janine Hall against Coles Myer Limited, arising from a slip and fall incident at a Coles supermarket in Chisholm, Canberra, on 24 November 1998. The plaintiff, Janine Hall, alleges that she slipped on a liquid spill in the supermarket, resulting in injuries to her right sacroiliac joint, right L5-S1 facet joint, and associated soft tissues. The court was required to determine whether the defendant, Coles Myer Limited, was negligent in maintaining the premises and whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence, if any, would bar her recovery.

The court found that the defendant had failed to adequately warn customers of the spillage, which was detected but not cleaned up properly. The placement of a stock trolley obscured the warning sign, increasing the likelihood of customer injury. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to customers to either cover the spill or place a warning sign in a visible location. The failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff's injuries were functionally based rather than physically caused, accepting the evidence of orthopaedic and rheumatological experts that the plaintiff suffered genuine physical injuries. The plaintiff's psychological symptoms were attributed to her physical pain and its consequences.

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, treatment expenses, and future pharmaceutical expenses. The total award was $66,500, reflecting the permanent and moderate impact of the plaintiff's injuries on her life. The court considered the plaintiff's need for ongoing medication and the likelihood that she would continue to receive pharmaceutical benefits at a subsidised rate under the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Orders