Kelly's (Coleambally) Pty Ltd v Malone
Case
•
[2001] NSWCA 146
•21 May 2001
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kelly's (Coleambally) Pty Ltd v Malone [2001] NSWCA 146
[2001] NSWCA 146
21 May 2001
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kelly's (Coleambally) Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision that found it liable for personal injuries sustained by its employee, Ms. Malone. Ms. Malone was injured when she tripped over a dog while carrying a box in the course of her employment at the appellant's supermarket. The primary dispute concerned whether the appellant had been negligent in failing to warn or instruct Ms. Malone of the dangers posed by the dog, or in failing to tether or chain it.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to Ms. Malone regarding the presence of the dog, whether that duty had been breached, and if so, whether such breach caused Ms. Malone's injuries. The court was required to consider the extent to which an employer is entitled to expect employees to take reasonable care for their own safety, and whether the known tendency of the dog to wander in the area, coupled with Ms. Malone's awareness of this, absolved the appellant of liability.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that while an employer owes a duty of care to its employees, it is also entitled to assume that prudent employees will take reasonable care for their own safety. The court found a lack of evidence to establish that carrying the box obscured Ms. Malone's vision to such an extent that she could not see the dog move. Given Ms. Malone's awareness that the dog was known to wander in the area, the court concluded that negligence had not been established on the part of the appellant.
Consequently, the appeal was upheld, the verdict in favour of Ms. Malone was set aside, and a verdict was entered for Kelly's (Coleambally) Pty Ltd. Ms. Malone's claim was dismissed with costs, and she was ordered to repay any money previously paid to her by the appellant, with interest.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to Ms. Malone regarding the presence of the dog, whether that duty had been breached, and if so, whether such breach caused Ms. Malone's injuries. The court was required to consider the extent to which an employer is entitled to expect employees to take reasonable care for their own safety, and whether the known tendency of the dog to wander in the area, coupled with Ms. Malone's awareness of this, absolved the appellant of liability.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that while an employer owes a duty of care to its employees, it is also entitled to assume that prudent employees will take reasonable care for their own safety. The court found a lack of evidence to establish that carrying the box obscured Ms. Malone's vision to such an extent that she could not see the dog move. Given Ms. Malone's awareness that the dog was known to wander in the area, the court concluded that negligence had not been established on the part of the appellant.
Consequently, the appeal was upheld, the verdict in favour of Ms. Malone was set aside, and a verdict was entered for Kelly's (Coleambally) Pty Ltd. Ms. Malone's claim was dismissed with costs, and she was ordered to repay any money previously paid to her by the appellant, with interest.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Negligence
-
Duty of Care
-
Causation
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Bryan v Warrick
[2002] WADC 192
Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson
[2002] WASCA 7