Legal Research
Cases
Wakeling v Coles Group Limited

Wakeling v Coles Group Limited

Case [2011] NSWDC 20 4 April 2011

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20
Hearing dates: 28 & 29 October, 1 & 2 November 2010, 28 January 2011
Decision date: 04 April 2011
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:
1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350;
2.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
3.The exhibits may be returned;
4.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if required.

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - occupier's liability - slip and fall by customer on wet floor of supermarket - rainwater droplets on vinyl floor due to movement of wet shopping trolleys previously left outdoors in rainy conditions - whether appropriate customer safety systems were implemented to allow for such conditions - consideration of liability and damages issues arising pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2002; DAMAGES - assessment of heads of damage claimed by plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5B, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5G(1), 5H, 15, 16
Evidence Act 1995, s 60
Cases Cited: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479
Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25
Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84, (1984) 155 CLR 614
Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42
Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169
Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442
Woolworths Limited v Strong & Anor [2010] NSWCA 282
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1979 - 1980) 146 CLR 40
Texts Cited: -
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Wakeling (Plaintiff)
Coles Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation: Mr A Quinlivan (Plaintiff)
Mr D Priestley (Defendant)
CMC Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Lander & Rogers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2009/338620

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of the case

[1]

Issues

[2]

Credit

[3] - [5]

Evidence overview

[6] - [10]

Summary of findings

[11]

Assessed heads of damage

[12]

Facts

[13] - [52]

Issue 1 - Negligence and causation

[53] - [111]

Issue 2 - Alleged contributory negligence

[112] - [119]

Issue 3 - Damages assessment

[120] - [154]

Non-economic loss

[121] - [132]

Future domestic assistance

[133] - [143]

Future treatment expenses

[144] - [153

Past out-of-pocket expenses

[154]

Summary of damages assessments

[155]

Disposition

[156]

Orders

[157]

Judgment

Nature of the case

The plaintiff, Steven Wakeling, has brought these proceedings against the defendant, Coles Group Limited, claiming damages for personal injury due to alleged negligence by the defendant as occupier of supermarket premises. The claim by the plaintiff arises from circumstances occurring on 22 May 2009 at the defendant's supermarket at Mt Druitt, where the plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet vinyl floor whilst walking towards a stack of shopping trolleys within…

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 Wakeling v Coles Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20
Case: [2011] NSWDC 20
Decision Date: 04 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Wakeling v Coles Group Limited involved a customer who alleged that she suffered injuries after slipping on a wet floor in a Coles supermarket. The plaintiff claimed that the wet floor was caused by rainwater droplets left on the vinyl floor by wet shopping trolleys that had been moved indoors from a rainy outdoor environment. The dispute was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for her injuries, alleging that Coles Group Limited was negligent in its duty of care to ensure the safety of its customers.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether Coles Group Limited had implemented appropriate safety measures to prevent such incidents and whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the alleged negligence. The court also had to consider the application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 in assessing liability and damages. The key issue was whether the supermarket had taken reasonable steps to ensure customer safety in the face of foreseeable risks, such as wet shopping trolleys being moved indoors in wet weather conditions.

The court found that Coles Group Limited was indeed negligent in its duty of care. It was determined that the supermarket had not implemented adequate safety systems to manage the risks associated with wet trolleys being brought indoors during rainy weather. As a result, the court held the defendant liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court also assessed the plaintiff's claim for damages, taking into account the various heads of damage claimed. The plaintiff was awarded a total of $118,350 in damages, reflecting the court's findings on the extent of her injuries and the impact on her life.

The final orders of the court included a verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The exhibits were to be returned, and liberty to apply was granted on seven days' notice if required. The court's decision highlighted the importance of implementing effective safety measures to protect customers and the potential consequences for businesses that fail to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350;

2.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3.The exhibits may be returned;

4.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if required.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Woolworths Ltd v Strong
[2010] NSWCA 282 Para 1

…and subsequent injury was " more likely than not" due to the breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant: Woolworths Limited v Strong & Anor [2010] NSWCA 282, per Campbell JA, at [70]. In that case , the periodical inspection and cleaning procedures which in that case were found to have represented a reaso…
Shaw v Thomas
[2010] NSWCA 169 Para 1

…. This has been determined to involve a slightly more demanding test than that required by an application of the formulation in Shirt : Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169 per Macfarlan JA at [44].…
Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway
[2009] NSWCA 364 Para 1

…e defendant take reasonable care to protect entrants onto the premises from risks that could be foreseen and avoided : Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364 per McColl JA at [90], citing Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84, (1984) 155 CLR 614 at page 663, to the effect that the measure of the discharge of that…
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer
[2007] HCA 42 Para 1

…ted by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1979 - 1980) 146 CLR 40, at [90]; page 48; Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 at [18]. That analysis must proceed in conjunction with the requirements of s 5B of the CL Act .…
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council
[2005] HCA 62 Para 1

…479 , at pp 487 to 488 per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ. The analysis of this question must proceed prospectively : Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442, per Hayne J at [126], page 46. The analysis must also proceed in accordance with the requirements of s 5B of the CL Act . This r…
Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd
[2001] NSWCA 25 Para 1

…ve history summarised by Professor Champion as evidence of the plaintiff's early post-injury difficulties and treatment: Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25, per Heydon JA at [70]; s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995. Similarly, and consistent with that approach, I have drawn upon the unchallenged content of th…
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil
[2000] HCA 61 Para 1

…duty of care as the circumstances under consideration clearly gave rise to an obvious duty of care : Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254 per Gleeson CJ at [13]. The defendant did not seek to argue otherwise, nor did it seek to argue that the scope of that duty did not exte…
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna
[1987] HCA 7 Para 1

…owed to the plaintiff is a matter that must be evaluated according to the circumstances of the case : Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 , at pp 487 to 488 per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ. The analysis of this question must proceed prospectively : Vairy v Wyo…
Hackshaw v Shaw
[1984] HCA 84 Para 1

…remises from risks that could be foreseen and avoided : Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364 per McColl JA at [90], citing Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84, (1984) 155 CLR 614 at page 663, to the effect that the measure of the discharge of that duty was what a reasonable person would, in the circumstance…
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19 Para 1

…d form of analysis in circumstances where a conclusion is required to be based on a reasoned factual analysis rather than speculation: Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352.…
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
[1980] HCA 12 Para 1

…ysis for determining whether negligence has been established requires an application of the test formulated by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1979 - 1980) 146 CLR 40, at [90]; page 48; Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 at [18]. That analysis must proceed in conjun…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS)
15, 16, 5B, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5G(1), 5H 10 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
60 2 mentions (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wakeling v Coles Group Limited [2011] NSWDC 20
Hearing dates:	28 & 29 October, 1 & 2 November 2010, 28 January 2011
Decision date:	04 April 2011
Before:	Levy SC DCJ
Decision:	1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,350; 2.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered; 3.The exhibits may be returned; 4.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if required.
Catchwords:	TORTS - negligence - occupier's liability - slip and fall by customer on wet floor of supermarket - rainwater droplets on vinyl floor due to movement of wet shopping trolleys previously left outdoors in rainy conditions - whether appropriate customer safety systems were implemented to allow for such conditions - consideration of liability and damages issues arising pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2002; DAMAGES - assessment of heads of damage claimed by plaintiff
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5B, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5G(1), 5H, 15, 16 Evidence Act 1995, s 60
Cases Cited:	Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25 Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84, (1984) 155 CLR 614 Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169 Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442 Woolworths Limited v Strong & Anor [2010] NSWCA 282 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1979 - 1980) 146 CLR 40
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Steven Wakeling (Plaintiff) Coles Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr A Quinlivan (Plaintiff) Mr D Priestley (Defendant) CMC Lawyers (Plaintiff) Lander & Rogers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2009/338620

Nature of the case	[1]
Issues	[2]
Credit	[3] - [5]
Evidence overview	[6] - [10]
Summary of findings	[11]
Assessed heads of damage	[12]
Facts	[13] - [52]
Issue 1 - Negligence and causation	[53] - [111]
Issue 2 - Alleged contributory negligence	[112] - [119]
Issue 3 - Damages assessment	[120] - [154]
Non-economic loss	[121] - [132]
Future domestic assistance	[133] - [143]
Future treatment expenses	[144] - [153
Past out-of-pocket expenses	[154]
Summary of damages assessments	[155]
Disposition	[156]
Orders	[157]