Sanderson v Woolworths Limited

The plaintiff, Sanderson, filed a claim against Woolworths Limited in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking damages for pecuniary loss following an injury sustained at Woolworths. The plaintiff alleged that while working at the defendant’s store, she slipped on a wet floor, resulting in injuries to her left leg and low back. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the wet floor but rather by an inherent risk of her employment.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff’s injuries were sustained due to a risk inherent in her employment and whether these injuries qualified as serious injuries under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. Specifically, the court had to assess the nature of the risk and the extent to which it contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also needed to examine whether the injuries were severe enough to qualify as serious under the statutory definition, thereby warranting compensation for pecuniary loss.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the conditions at the store on the day of the incident and the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court considered the expert medical evidence that detailed the plaintiff’s injuries and their impact on her life. The court found that the risk of slipping on a wet floor was not an inherent risk of the plaintiff's employment but rather an external condition that arose from the defendant’s failure to maintain a safe environment. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s injuries were serious as they met the criteria set out in section 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, thereby justifying compensation for pecuniary loss.

The court granted leave to the plaintiff to bring proceedings for pecuniary loss damages. The court’s decision hinged on the finding that the plaintiff’s injuries were not an inherent risk of her employment and were severe enough to qualify as serious injuries under the Act. The court’s ruling paves the way for the plaintiff to seek compensation for the pecuniary losses resulting from her injuries.