Sajad v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Sajad v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 272
Hearing dates:	11 – 13 November 2015
Date of orders:	18 November 2015
Decision date:	18 November 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Elkaim SC DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph 108
Catchwords:	Personal injury, slip on a wet painted Disability sign, contribution between painter and occupier.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited:	Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Limited v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258 Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 Garzo v Liverpool / Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ahmad Sajad (Plaintiff) Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (ACN 086 210 139) (First Defendant) Boronia Investments Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 001 766 454) (Second Defendant) Kenex Stencils Pty Limited (ACN 131 189 396) (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: A Lidden SC and P Khandhar (Plaintiff) P Perry (First and Second Defendants) S Torrington (Third Defendant)   Solicitors: L J Sharpe & Co (Plaintiff) McCabes Lawyers (First Defendant) Moray & Agnew (Second Defendant) Curwoods Lawyers (Third Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/00157617

Judgment

1. The plaintiff was injured on 21 February 2011 when he allegedly slipped on a painted surface in the carpark outside the Aldi Store in Bankstown. He has sued the defendants for damages arising from his injuries. He says they owed him a duty of care which they breached.

2. The action is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the “CLA”). The plaintiff has claimed damages under the following heads: non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future domestic care and past and future medical expenses.

3. The first defendant (“Aldi”) is the owner and occupier of the supermarket. The second defendant was the builder and developer of the site. Ultimately no submissions were put against the second defendant. The third defendant (“Kenex”) is a line marking contractor that did the work which is alleged to have given rise to the plaintiff’s injuries.

4. Aldi admitted it owed the plaintiff a duty of care but denied any breach. Kenex denied it owed the plaintiff a duty of care and, if it was wrong, denied any breach. All the defendants challenged the extent of the plaintiff’s damages.

5. The work done by Kenex was the painting, in 2008, of ‘Disabled’ signs in the carpark (for example Exhibit C, photographs 6 and 7). The plaintiff says that on the day that he slipped it was raining so that the painted surface over which he walked was slippery.

6. None of the four experts retained in the case suggested that, when wet, the painted surface was not slippery.

The plaintiff’s background

7. The plaintiff was born in Lebanon in 1963. He left school in 1978 having achieved the equivalent of the school certificate. He became a salesman in a furniture shop and continued in this and assorted other occupations until…