Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd v Miloradovic
Case
•
[2019] WASCA 17
•30 JANUARY 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd v Miloradovic [2019] WASCA 17
[2019] WASCA 17
30 JANUARY 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd brought a proceeding against Miloradovic, seeking damages for injuries she sustained while collecting goods from a store. The respondent, Miloradovic, claimed that she was injured when a vehicle driven by a third party entered a pick-up bay, which was adjacent to a common-use access way, and struck her. The store owner, Osborne Park, argued that it did not owe a duty of care to the respondent in these circumstances. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The court was required to determine whether the store owner owed a duty of care to the respondent. The court considered whether there was an established category of duty of care, and if not, whether a novel duty of care was owed. The court also considered whether the store owner breached the duty of care, if one existed, and whether the breach caused the respondent's injuries.
The court held that a store owner owed a duty of care to a customer collecting goods from a pick-up bay if it was reasonably foreseeable that the customer could be injured in the process. The court found that the store owner did owe a duty of care to the respondent. The court further held that the store owner breached this duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the respondent was not exposed to an unreasonable risk of injury. The court found that the breach of duty of care was causative of the respondent's injuries.
The court ordered that Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd pay Miloradovic damages for her injuries, and that Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd pay Miloradovic's costs of the proceeding.
The court was required to determine whether the store owner owed a duty of care to the respondent. The court considered whether there was an established category of duty of care, and if not, whether a novel duty of care was owed. The court also considered whether the store owner breached the duty of care, if one existed, and whether the breach caused the respondent's injuries.
The court held that a store owner owed a duty of care to a customer collecting goods from a pick-up bay if it was reasonably foreseeable that the customer could be injured in the process. The court found that the store owner did owe a duty of care to the respondent. The court further held that the store owner breached this duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the respondent was not exposed to an unreasonable risk of injury. The court found that the breach of duty of care was causative of the respondent's injuries.
The court ordered that Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd pay Miloradovic damages for her injuries, and that Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd pay Miloradovic's costs of the proceeding.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Causation
-
Reasonable Foreseeability
-
Breach of Duty
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
LBE v Perth Diocesan Trustees [2024] WADC 92
Cases Citing This Decision
10
LBE v Perth Diocesan Trustees
[2024] WADC 92
Lenane Holdings Pty Ltd v Summit Rural (WA) Pty Ltd
[2023] WADC 42
Essaiyd v Saint
[2021] WADC 61
Cases Cited
36
Statutory Material Cited
1
Miloradovic v Osborne Park Commercial Pty Limited
[2017] WADC 129
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu
[2007] NSWCA 377
The Quadriplegic Centre Board of Management v McMurtrie
[2009] WASCA 173