Thompson v Woolworths - [2003] QDC 152

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thompson v. Woolworths [2003] QDC 152

PARTIES:

THELMA JEAN THOMPSON
(plaintiff)

v.

WOOLWORTHS (Q’LAND) PTY LTD
ACN 009 034 819
(defendant)

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15, 16, 17 and 28 April 2003

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $157,991.89

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – occupier’s liability – duty of care owed by shopping centre owner to delivery driver moving industrial bin – breach of duty of care – back injury – quantum of damages Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, 488 Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563, 570
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614, 663 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, 311-312, 315 McPherson v Whitfield (1996) 1 Qd R 474 O’Brien & O’Brien v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd (2001) QSC 217 O’Shea v Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd (1971) Qd R 1, 11 Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2001-2002) 208 CLR 460, 472, 473, 478, 499-500, 502
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, 47-48

COUNSEL:

M. Eliadis for the plaintiff
M. O’Sullivan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiff
Blake Dawson Waldron for the defendant

The plaintiff was born on 3 March 1952.

The defendant is the occupier of the land and the premises situated at the corner of Locke and High Streets, Stanthorpe known as Woolworths (“the shopping complex”).

The plaintiff claims that in late August 1999 the plaintiff was delivering bread to the defendant at the shopping complex. At the time there were two large industrial bins (the bins) left in front of a loading dock (the dock) at the shopping complex, blocking the access for the plaintiff’s truck to the loading dock. As the plaintiff pushed one of the bins in front of the dock towards the latticed area next to the dock the plaintiff injured her back.

In March 1998 the plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Cobbity Farm Bakeries Pty Ltd which granted the plaintiff a licence to sell and/or deliver bread to Cobbity Farm Bakeries Pty Ltd’s customers (the vendorship). One of those customers was the defendant.

The plaintiff’s evidence was that when she first commenced the vendorship she would deliver bread to the defendant at about 6 or 6.30 a.m. About five or six weeks into the vendorship the defendant’s storeman Mr Frank Thompson asked the plaintiff and her husband if the plaintiff and her husband would be able to change their delivery time to some time between 5 and 5.30 a.m. The plaintiff and her husband agreed to do that.

The plaintiff said her usual method of unloading the bread at the shopping complex was to reverse her truck along a laneway that led to the dock. On some mornings the bins were on the laneway. This prevented the plaintiff from…

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 Thompson v Woolworths 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: [2003] QDC 152
Decision Date: 18 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thompson v Woolworths, the plaintiff, a delivery driver, sought compensation for a back injury sustained while working at a Woolworths shopping centre. The dispute centred around the duty of care owed by the shopping centre owner to delivery drivers when they are moving industrial bins within the premises. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and if so, whether this breach led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court had to consider the principles established in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, which outlined the standard of care that an occupier must provide to lawful visitors, and in Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht, which emphasised the need for an occupier to anticipate the actions of lawful visitors.

The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that the defendant did indeed breach the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to provide adequate instructions and supervision, and the layout of the premises contributed to the risk of injury. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this breach. The plaintiff’s back injury was severe, resulting in significant medical expenses, loss of earnings, and ongoing pain and disability. The court assessed the quantum of damages based on the evidence of the plaintiff’s medical condition, the impact on his life, and the defendant's liability.

Following the findings, the court awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the total sum of $157,991.89. This amount was determined to adequately compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and losses, taking into account all relevant factors. The court's decision underscores the importance of occupiers providing a safe environment for delivery drivers and other lawful visitors.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $157,991.89

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:	Thompson v. Woolworths [2003] QDC 152
PARTIES:	THELMA JEAN THOMPSON (plaintiff) v. WOOLWORTHS (Q’LAND) PTY LTD ACN 009 034 819 (defendant)
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	18 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15, 16, 17 and 28 April 2003
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $157,991.89
CATCHWORDS:	Torts – occupier’s liability – duty of care owed by shopping centre owner to delivery driver moving industrial bin – breach of duty of care – back injury – quantum of damages Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, 488 Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563, 570 Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614, 663 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, 311-312, 315 McPherson v Whitfield (1996) 1 Qd R 474 O’Brien & O’Brien v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd (2001) QSC 217 O’Shea v Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd (1971) Qd R 1, 11 Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2001-2002) 208 CLR 460, 472, 473, 478, 499-500, 502 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, 47-48
COUNSEL:	M. Eliadis for the plaintiff M. O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiff Blake Dawson Waldron for the defendant