Prasad v Woolworths Limited - [2017] NSWDC 79

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 March 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000.
(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Catchwords: TORT – negligence – personal injury – slip and fall – supermarket – limited system of cleaning and inspections – injury to back, right knee and right buttock – psychological injuries – domestic assistance
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B, s 5C, s 5D
Cases Cited: Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241
Franklins Limited v Brown [2000] NSWCA 177
Irena Alat v Franklins Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 104
Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 246 CLR 152; [2012] HCA 5
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Premila Prasad (plaintiff)
Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Parker (plaintiff)
Mr R Gambi (defendant)
Solicitors:
Compensation Partners Pty Ltd (plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2016/37789
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

Premila Prasad slipped and fell in a Woolworths store and claims damages for negligence. Past out-of-pocket expenses are agreed at $20,000.

B. ISSUES

The issues in the proceedings are:

Whether Woolworths was negligent.

What percentage of a most extreme case should be adopted in respect of Ms Prasad’s injuries and disabilities in order to calculate her non-economic loss.

What award, if any, should be made in respect of past and future loss of earning capacity.

What level of domestic care for Ms Prasad has been occasioned by the fall, and would it be likely that Ms Prasad would incur the expense of paid commercial care in the future.

Future medical expenses.

C. THE FALL

On 8 February 2013 Ms Prasad entered the Woolworths Campbelltown store with her husband, Vinod Kumar, to do her weekly shopping. She was wearing “almost new” thongs on her feet. After progressing down some aisles together, with Mr Kumar pushing the trolley, they separated as each went to gather some items. Ms Prasad collected some milk and walked down another aisle for a final item. There was no sign of danger in the aisle. As she came towards the end of the aisle, her left foot slipped forward as she stepped on a liquid substance on the floor. Her right knee hit the ground as she fell. She felt pain in her knee, her lower back and the right side of her bottom. She noticed a clear liquid substance on the floor about 30 centimetres in diameter.
A man in the aisle called out, “The lady has fallen down, can you help her?" Two “boys”, employees of Woolworths, came to assist. One helped Ms Prasad to sit on a box. The other collected the container of milk. One of them said that he would get the supervisor. He returned with a female Woolworths employee wearing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Prasad v Woolworths Limited

Details

AGLC: Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79
Case: [2017] NSWDC 79
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Prasad, who brought a claim for damages against Woolworths Limited, alleging that he had suffered injuries as a result of a fall in the defendant's supermarket. Mr. Prasad's injuries included damage to his back, right knee, and right buttock, as well as psychological injuries. He sought compensation for his physical and psychological harm, as well as for the loss of his ability to provide domestic assistance to his wife. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether Woolworths Limited was negligent in the maintenance of their premises and whether this negligence caused Mr. Prasad's injuries. The court also needed to consider the extent of Mr. Prasad's injuries and the impact they had on his life, including his ability to work and provide domestic assistance. The court had to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the plaintiff had established his case on the balance of probabilities.

In its judgment, the court found that Woolworths Limited had failed to maintain a safe environment for its customers, resulting in Mr. Prasad's injuries. The court held that the defendant had a duty of care to ensure that their premises were free from hazards that could cause harm to customers. The court found that Woolworths Limited had breached this duty by failing to properly clean and inspect the floor of their store, which led to the presence of a slippery substance that caused Mr. Prasad to fall. The court also found that Mr. Prasad had suffered significant physical and psychological injuries as a result of the fall, which had a significant impact on his life. The court awarded Mr. Prasad damages in the sum of $293,000 and ordered Woolworths Limited to pay his costs.

The court's orders included a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000 and an order that Woolworths Limited pay the plaintiff's costs. The court found that the defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and ordered them to compensate him for his physical and psychological harm, as well as for the loss of his ability to provide domestic assistance. The court's decision sends a clear message to businesses that they have a duty to maintain a safe environment for their customers and that they can be held liable for any harm caused by their negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000.

(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79
Hearing dates:	29 and 30 March 2017
Date of orders:	31 March 2017
Decision date:	31 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000. (2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
Catchwords:	TORT – negligence – personal injury – slip and fall – supermarket – limited system of cleaning and inspections – injury to back, right knee and right buttock – psychological injuries – domestic assistance
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B, s 5C, s 5D
Cases Cited:	Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241 Franklins Limited v Brown [2000] NSWCA 177 Irena Alat v Franklins Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 104 Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 246 CLR 152; [2012] HCA 5
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Premila Prasad (plaintiff) Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Parker (plaintiff) Mr R Gambi (defendant) Solicitors: Compensation Partners Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2016/37789
Publication restriction:	None