Stringer & or v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (SA) Pty Ltd

Case

[2017] SASCFC 138

26 October 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Stringer & or v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (SA) Pty Ltd [2017] SASCFC 138 [2017] SASCFC 138 26 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this matter were the plaintiffs, Mrs and Mr Stringer, and the defendant, Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (SA) Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned injuries sustained by Mrs Stringer when she slipped on a liquid spill on the floor of the West Lakes Westfield Shopping Centre, which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the defendant or its independent cleaning contractor. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant, as occupier of the shopping centre, owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the defendant was liable for the negligence of the cleaning company, Reflections Cleaning Company, which had been engaged to maintain the premises. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the cleaner or liable for breaching statutory duties related to occupational health and safety.

The court's reasoning focused on the defendant's discharge of its duty of care as an occupier. It was found that the defendant had taken reasonable steps by engaging a competent cleaning contractor, imposing appropriate cleaning obligations, and reasonably monitoring the contractor's performance. The court accepted the trial judge's findings that the liquid spill was deposited by a Reflections cleaner shortly before the plaintiff's fall, and that the cleaner was negligent in failing to clean it up. However, the court determined that there was insufficient time between the deposit of the liquid and the plaintiff's fall for the defendant to have reasonably intervened. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had discharged its duty by engaging Reflections, and was not vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant was dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Negligence & Tort

  • Contract Law

Legal Concepts

  • Duty of Care

  • Negligence

  • Causation

  • Vicarious Liability

  • Appeal

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0