Metaxoulis v McDonald's Australia Ltd

In *Metaxoulis v McDonald's Australia Ltd*, the appellant, who was injured while rescuing a child who had become trapped in an unsecured area of the respondent's playground, appealed a District Court judgment that found in favour of the respondent. The appellant argued that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to implement a system to prevent unauthorised access by children to a dangerous back area of the playground, which had an unlocked gate with no warning. The appeal also concerned the adequacy of damages awarded for non-economic loss, economic loss (both past and future), and domestic assistance.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondent breached its duty of care to patrons by failing to secure the back area of the playground. Further, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in assessing damages, specifically regarding non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, and the need for domestic assistance. The admissibility and relevance of expert evidence, and whether the appellant was permitted to run a "new case" on appeal, were also central issues.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had breached its duty of care. The court reasoned that the respondent knew the back area was dangerous and that children accessed it, yet failed to secure the gate adequately. Regarding damages, the court determined that the trial judge's assessment of non-economic loss was manifestly inadequate and that the appellant had suffered past economic loss. The court also found an error in the trial judge's assessment of the need for domestic assistance, concluding that the appellant required assistance at commercial rates due to his inability to perform tasks requiring pressure with both hands. The court applied principles from *Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd* in its assessment of damages.

The appeal was allowed, and the District Court orders were set aside. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff (appellant) in the amount of $179,000, with the defendant (respondent) ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in the District Court and the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the Court of Appeal.