Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a negligence claim brought by the appellant, a bread delivery driver, against the respondent, Woolworths (Q'ld) Pty Ltd, for a back injury sustained while delivering goods to the respondent's store. The appellant had been attempting to move industrial waste bins that were obstructing the supermarket's loading dock. The primary judge in the District Court of Queensland found the respondent liable and awarded damages, rejecting a claim of contributory negligence. However, the Queensland Court of Appeal, by majority, overturned this decision, finding no negligence on the part of the respondent.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the primary judge's finding of negligence. A secondary issue was whether the appellant was contributorily negligent. The central dispute revolved around the content of the duty of care owed by an occupier to an independent contractor entering the premises for a mutual commercial purpose, and whether the respondent had breached that duty by failing to implement reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of injury to the appellant.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal was not justified in reversing the primary judge's finding of negligence. The Court reasoned that the respondent, as occupier, owed a duty of care to the appellant, an entrant on its premises for a mutual commercial purpose. This duty required the respondent to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable risks of injury. The Court noted that the primary judge had found the risk of injury from moving the bins to be foreseeable and that reasonable measures, which were neither expensive nor difficult to implement, could have been taken to mitigate this risk. The Court of Appeal's reversal of this finding was considered an error.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed with costs, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal. Judgment was entered for the appellant in the sum of $105,327.92, reflecting a one-third reduction for contributory negligence, as suggested by the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the District Court.