Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd

Case [2010] ACTSC 11


ROSEMARY FRANCES JENNINGS v WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTRE & ANOR
[2010] ACTSC 11 (19 February 2010)

NEGLIGENCE – occupier’s liability – shopping mall – personal injury – whether delegation to cleaning contractor absolves occupier of liability to entrant against cleaner
NEGLIGENCE – personal injury – shopping mall – claim by entrant against cleaning contractor – circumstances in which contractor liable
DAMAGES – personal injury – slip and fall in shopping mall – injury to shoulder – supraspinatus tear – blow to hip resulting in trochanteric bursitis – paediatric nurse aged 59 at injury – loss of earning capacity – no issue of principle

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 16 and 17,

Cairns v Woolworths Ltd [2005] ACTSC 95
Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241

Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16

Woolworths (WA) Pty Limited v Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited [2004] WASCA 196, (2004) 28 WAR 540
Allcorp Cleaning Services Pty Limited v Fairweather (NSW Court of Appeal, 29 June 1998, unreported)
 P & H PropertyService Pty Limited v Branigan [2008] NSWCA 195

Bullock v London General Omnibus Co Ltd [1907] 1 KB 264

No.  SC 710 of 2008

Judge:              Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               19 February 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No.  SC 710 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:ROSEMARY FRANCES JENNINGS

Plaintiff

AND:WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTRE MANAGEMENT CO (ACT) PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 612 002)

First defendant

REFLECTIONS CLEANING PTY LIMITED
(ACN 119 493 382)

Second defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  19 February 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $114,657.22.

  1. Judgment be entered for the first defendant.

  1. On 14 June 2007 at 10.30 am the plaintiff went to the Westfield Shopping Centre, familiarly known as Belconnen Mall, to go to the bank.  She was on her way home after finishing her usual nightshift as a registered nurse in the paediatric ward at the Canberra Hospital.  It had been raining and may still have been raining when she arrived at the Mall.  She parked her car and walked to an upper-level entrance with automatic sliding glass doors on the western side of the building.  Not far in from the doors she slipped and fell.

  2. She brings this action against the first defendant, Westfield Shopping Centre  Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd, as occupier of the premises, and the second defendant, Reflections Cleaning Pty Ltd, as the cleaning contractor.

  3. The floor of the common area of the shopping centre, where the plaintiff fell, is of terrazzo tiles of the type commonly found in modern shopping malls.  The unchallenged evidence is that the tiled floor provided adequate traction when dry, and was not intrinsically hazardous.  The mall was built in 1978 and has operated continuously since then.  It is one of the largest shopping malls in Canberra.  It is open between 9.00 am and 5.30 pm seven days a week…

Continue reading Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] ACTSC 11
Case
[2010] ACTSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennings sued Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd and its cleaning contractor, alleging injuries sustained from a slip and fall in the shopping centre. The case was heard in a court which determined whether the shopping centre management company could be held liable despite having delegated cleaning duties to a contractor, and whether the contractor could be held liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The court examined the principles of occupier’s liability and the extent to which delegation of duties could absolve the occupier from liability. Additionally, it assessed the circumstances under which the cleaning contractor could be held responsible for the injuries. The court concluded that the occupier remained liable despite the delegation of cleaning duties, as the primary duty of care to entrants for hazards on the premises remained with the occupier. The cleaning contractor, however, was found to be liable for the injuries caused by the slip and fall, as the hazard was within their scope of responsibility. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for her injuries, including loss of earning capacity, and rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s age or profession should diminish the award. Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff against the cleaning contractor for the specified amount, while the shopping centre management company was found not liable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $114,657.22.

2. Judgment be entered for the first defendant.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.