Woolworths Ltd v Ryder

In *Woolworths Ltd v Ryder*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Woolworths Ltd from a judgment of the primary judge. The dispute concerned a claim for damages for personal injury brought by the respondent, Ms Ryder, who alleged she slipped on a grape outside the entrance to Woolworths' supermarket, which was located within a shopping centre. Ms Ryder contended that Woolworths owed her a duty of care in relation to hazards in the common area adjacent to its premises, particularly those created by products purchased from the supermarket.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Woolworths owed a duty of care to users of the common area near its entrance, specifically in circumstances where a hazard was created by the use of a product purchased from the supermarket. Further, the Court had to consider whether the primary judge's finding that an admission had been made by an employee of Woolworths was supported by sufficient evidence. Finally, assuming a duty of care existed, the Court was to assess whether Woolworths had breached that duty.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's decision was not supported by the evidence. It held that the evidence did not establish that the grape on which Ms Ryder slipped was a product sold by Woolworths, nor did it establish that Woolworths had created or contributed to the hazard. Consequently, the Court concluded that Woolworths did not owe a duty of care to Ms Ryder in relation to the incident. The appeal was allowed, the primary judge's orders were set aside, and judgment was entered for Woolworths. Ms Ryder was ordered to pay Woolworths' costs of both the primary proceedings and the appeal.