Legal Research
Cases
Vincent v Woolworths Limited

Vincent v Woolworths Limited

Case [2015] NSWSC 435 17 April 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Vincent v Woolworths Ltd and Vincent v Counterpoint Marketing & Sales Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 435
Hearing dates: 10, 11, 12, 13 June and 4 July 2014
Date of orders: 17 April 2015
Decision date: 17 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
In matter No. 2010/401259
Judgment for the defendant;
The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis forthwith after they have been agreed or assessed;
Second Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
In matter No. 2013/190244
Judgment for the defendant;
The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis, if the defendant is otherwise entitled under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Regulation 2010 (NSW);
First Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Catchwords:
TORTS – negligence – liability for injury at work due to collision with trolley at supermarket operated by Woolworths – duty of care owed by Woolworths as the occupier of the premises to an entrant working in the course of their employment for their employer – whether the risk of personal injury is insignificant where risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable

TORTS – negligence – liability for injury at work due to collision with a trolley at a supermarket – duty of care owed by an employer where the employee was working as a merchandiser at another’s premises – whether risk was foreseeable according to the common law principles

TORTS – contingent finding – response to identifiable risk – assessment of the burden of alleviating risk by both the employer and the occupier of the premises – where both businesses operate on a national scale
DAMAGES – torts – negligence – workers compensation – contingent finding – application of Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb
Legislation Cited: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW);
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW);
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Astley v Austrust Limited [1999] HCA 6; 197 CLR;
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479;
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301;
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 13; 179 CLR 520;
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59; 200 CLR 1;
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 79 ALJR 839 at 843 [12];
Dibb Group Pty Ltd v Cole [2009] NSWCA 210; Aust Tort Reports 82-022;
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins & Ors [2003] HCA 51; 215 CLR 317;
Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd v Cuiuli (1961) 104 CLR 177
Estate of the Late MT Mutton by its Executors & R W Mutton trading as Mutton Bros v Howard Haulage Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 340;
Foufoulis v FG Strang Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 168;
General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] AC 180;
Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84; 155 CLR 614;
Modbury Triangle Shopping…

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.

Continue reading Vincent v Woolworths Limited

Details

AGLC: Vincent v Woolworths Limited [2015] NSWSC 435
Case: [2015] NSWSC 435
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent, the plaintiff, sued Woolworths, the defendant, over a workplace injury sustained at Woolworths' supermarket. Vincent, employed by another business, was working as a merchandiser at the supermarket when he was injured by a collision with a trolley. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Woolworths owed Vincent a duty of care as the occupier of the premises, and whether the risk of personal injury was sufficiently foreseeable to impose such a duty.

The court examined the legal principles governing the duty of care owed by both the occupier and the employer in such circumstances. It considered whether the risk of personal injury was foreseeable and insignificant, and whether the burden of alleviating the risk could be fairly allocated between Woolworths and Vincent’s employer. The court also assessed whether the common law principles adequately protected employees working on another's premises and if the risk was identifiable and could be reasonably mitigated by both parties.

The court found that the risk of injury was indeed foreseeable and significant, and thus, Woolworths owed a duty of care to Vincent. The burden of alleviating the risk was deemed manageable and reasonable to impose on both parties. The court ruled that the common law adequately protected employees in such situations, and both parties had a responsibility to ensure safety measures were in place. The High Court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the foreseeability of risk against the burden of preventative measures.

In conclusion, the court held Woolworths liable for the injury sustained by Vincent. The court also made a contingent finding on damages, noting the principles established in Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb, which emphasised the need to consider workers' compensation when assessing damages in negligence claims. The decision underscored the importance of both employers and occupiers taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable workplace injuries.

Orders