Marmara v Kmart Australia Limited
Case
•
[2024] NSWDC 89
•26 March 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marmara v Kmart Australia Limited [2024] NSWDC 89
[2024] NSWDC 89
26 March 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Marmara sued Kmart Australia Limited for injuries sustained when she was struck by a large and heavy trail bike box that fell onto her from behind in the self-service checkout section of a Kmart store. The plaintiff argued that Kmart failed to exercise a duty of care towards her, as it was foreseeable that shoppers with large items could cause harm to others in the self-service area. The court was tasked with determining whether Kmart owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if that duty was breached, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to assess the foreseeability of such an incident and the adequacy of Kmart's system for managing shoppers with outsize items.
The court examined the circumstances of the incident and the systems in place at Kmart to manage shoppers with large items. It found that Kmart had a system in place, which included signage warning shoppers about the potential for injury, but this was not sufficient to discharge the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that shoppers with large items could cause harm to others in the self-service area, and Kmart should have taken further steps to prevent such incidents. The court also found that Kmart's system for managing outsize items was inadequate and did not go far enough to protect shoppers from harm.
The court concluded that Kmart owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty was breached. The breach caused the plaintiff's injuries, and Kmart was liable for damages. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for her injuries and ordered judgment in her favour. The parties were given liberty to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the agreed quantum of damages, with the option to apply if the sum could not be agreed. Costs were reserved with liberty to apply, and exhibits were retained until further order.
The court examined the circumstances of the incident and the systems in place at Kmart to manage shoppers with large items. It found that Kmart had a system in place, which included signage warning shoppers about the potential for injury, but this was not sufficient to discharge the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that shoppers with large items could cause harm to others in the self-service area, and Kmart should have taken further steps to prevent such incidents. The court also found that Kmart's system for managing outsize items was inadequate and did not go far enough to protect shoppers from harm.
The court concluded that Kmart owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty was breached. The breach caused the plaintiff's injuries, and Kmart was liable for damages. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for her injuries and ordered judgment in her favour. The parties were given liberty to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the agreed quantum of damages, with the option to apply if the sum could not be agreed. Costs were reserved with liberty to apply, and exhibits were retained until further order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Causation
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 48
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara (No 2)
[2025] NSWCA 48
Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara
[2024] NSWCA 249
Kmart Australia Limited v Marmara (No 2)
[2025] NSWCA 48
Cases Cited
33
Statutory Material Cited
2
Irena Alat v Franklins Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWDC 104
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna
[1987] HCA 7
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna
[1987] HCA 7