Scott v Patterdale Pty Ltd - [2000] QDC 356

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Scott v. Patterdale Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] QDC 356

PARTIES: GWENDA MAXINE SCOTT  Plaintiff
And
PATTERDALE PTY LTD
ACN 003 996 883     Defendant
And
NOEL JOHN PRENDERGAST AND
COLLEEN MARY PRENDERGAST      Third Party

FILE NO/S: D 968 of 1999

DIVISION: Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING: Proceeding by claim

ORIGINATING COURT: Maryborough

DELIVERED ON: 27 November 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 8, 9 November 2000

JUDGE: Judge Robin Q.C.

ORDER: JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR 70% OF AGREED DAMAGES. THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:
Torts - negligence - occupier's liability - slippery floor - "slipping case" - plaintiff established she slipped on a small amount of water tracked into the area just inside the main doors of the defendant's shopping centre - day was rainy and it had been raining before the fall - none of the usual wet weather precautions (mopping, absorbent matting or warning devices) had been taken, the defendant and third party (cleaning contractor) contending no need had arisen - court held insufficient vigilance had been applied in checking whether the precautions were required - defendant's system found deficient - third party proceedings dismissed - cleaners not shown to have departed from the system or breached their duty to the plaintiff - contributory negligence found against plaintiff.

Sleiman v. Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd (1989) ATR 68, 827;
Griffin v. Coles Myer Ltd (1992) 2 QdR 478;
Boyle v. G J Coles & Co. Ltd (1969) QdR 445;
C F Brady v. Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241;
Drakos v. Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56 SASR 431;
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479;
Kocis v. S E Dickens Pty Ltd (1996) ATR 63, 292;
Brown v. Target Australia Pty Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 145
Franklins Limited v. Hunter CA 40128/97 (1998) NSWSC 239 (1 May 1998);
Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) 1 WLR 810
Mallows v Woolworths (Victoria) Limited, trading as Purity Supermarket (1998) TAS Supreme Court 85 (17 July 1998)

COUNSEL: Mr P Goodwin for the plaintiff
Ms R Treston for the defendant
Mr S Lumb for the third party

SOLICITORS: Carswell & Co for the plaintiff
Gadens for the defendant
Phillips Fox for the third party

The first heading in the judgment of Kirby P. in Sleiman v. Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd (1989) Australian Torts Reports 68, 827, a dissenting judgment, was:-

"The perils of slippery floors and their litigation".

Cases at appellate level appear to demonstrate that such litigation brings more than the usual share of pitfalls for trial judges, whether they find for the plaintiff injured in a slip (Griffin v. Coles Myer Ltd (1992) 2 QdR 478; Boyle v. G J Coles & Co. Ltd (1969) QdR 445; cf Brady v. Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241; Drakos v. Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56 SASR 431) or dismiss the claim: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott v Patterdale Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] QDC 356
Decision Date: 27 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Scott v Patterdale Pty Ltd, the plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained when she slipped on a small amount of water inside the main entrance of the defendant's shopping centre. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, as the occupier, failed to take adequate precautions to prevent slipping hazards during rainy weather. The defendant argued that no need for wet weather precautions had arisen and that it had not breached its duty of care. The third party, the cleaning contractor, also denied any breach of duty.

The court examined the legal issues regarding the defendant's duty to maintain a safe environment for visitors, focusing on whether the defendant exercised sufficient vigilance in determining the need for wet weather precautions. The court found that the defendant had not adequately checked whether such precautions were necessary, despite the rainy conditions, and held that this constituted a breach of duty. The court also considered the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, finding that she was 30% responsible for her injuries.

The court held that the defendant's system for checking and implementing wet weather precautions was deficient, and that the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. The proceedings against the third party were dismissed as the court found no evidence that the cleaning contractor had departed from the defendant's system or breached their duty. The plaintiff's contributory negligence was assessed at 30%, and the court awarded the plaintiff 70% of the agreed damages against the defendant.

The final orders were that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for 70% of the agreed damages, and that the third party proceedings be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR 70% OF AGREED DAMAGES. THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED

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.

CITATION:	Scott v. Patterdale Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] QDC 356
PARTIES:	GWENDA MAXINE SCOTT Plaintiff And PATTERDALE PTY LTD ACN 003 996 883 Defendant And NOEL JOHN PRENDERGAST AND COLLEEN MARY PRENDERGAST Third Party
FILE NO/S:	D 968 of 1999
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Proceeding by claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8, 9 November 2000
JUDGE:	Judge Robin Q.C.
ORDER:	JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR 70% OF AGREED DAMAGES. THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED
CATCHWORDS:	Torts - negligence - occupier's liability - slippery floor - "slipping case" - plaintiff established she slipped on a small amount of water tracked into the area just inside the main doors of the defendant's shopping centre - day was rainy and it had been raining before the fall - none of the usual wet weather precautions (mopping, absorbent matting or warning devices) had been taken, the defendant and third party (cleaning contractor) contending no need had arisen - court held insufficient vigilance had been applied in checking whether the precautions were required - defendant's system found deficient - third party proceedings dismissed - cleaners not shown to have departed from the system or breached their duty to the plaintiff - contributory negligence found against plaintiff. Sleiman v. Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd (1989) ATR 68, 827; Griffin v. Coles Myer Ltd (1992) 2 QdR 478; Boyle v. G J Coles & Co. Ltd (1969) QdR 445; C F Brady v. Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241; Drakos v. Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56 SASR 431; Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; Kocis v. S E Dickens Pty Ltd (1996) ATR 63, 292; Brown v. Target Australia Pty Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 145 Franklins Limited v. Hunter CA 40128/97 (1998) NSWSC 239 (1 May 1998); Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) 1 WLR 810 Mallows v Woolworths (Victoria) Limited, trading as Purity Supermarket (1998) TAS Supreme Court 85 (17 July 1998)
COUNSEL:	Mr P Goodwin for the plaintiff Ms R Treston for the defendant Mr S Lumb for the third party
SOLICITORS:	Carswell & Co for the plaintiff Gadens for the defendant Phillips Fox for the third party