In slip-and-fall cases on mopped floors, a plaintiff who fails to call expert evidence on the slip resistance of the particular surfaces and the effect of wetness on shoe soles leaves an evidentiary vacuum that is fatal to proving causation, even where breach of duty is established. The mere fact that a floor was wet and the plaintiff fell does not, without more, support an inference that wetness caused the fall, particularly where non-slip surfaces and detergent were used. A finding that a risk is 'obvious' under s 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) only removes the duty to warn under s 5H(1) and does not affect liability for breach of other duties such as failure to mop in sections.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.