Woolworths Ltd v Ryder

[2014] NSWCA 223

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Occupier's liability
5. › Whether operator of supermarket in shopping centre owes duty of care to users of common area near entrance
6. › Whether hazard created by customer's use of product purchased from vendor gives rise to duty
7. › Whether foreseeability of harm sufficient to establish duty
8. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Whether failure to warn customer or refuse to open product constitutes breach
5. › Whether statutory criteria for breach satisfied
6. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
1. Evidence
2. › Findings of fact
3. › Appellate review
4. › Whether trial judge's finding of admission supported by evidence
5. › Finding inconsistent with witness's own evidence
1. Evidence
2. › Jones v Dunkel inference
3. › Whether failure to call witness attracts adverse inference
4. › Whether party required to explain or contradict something

Quick Take

The operator of a retail premises in a shopping centre does not owe a duty of care to persons in the common area to prevent hazards created by customers' use or misuse of products purchased from the retailer, even where the hazard is foreseeable. Foreseeability of harm is necessary but not sufficient to establish a duty of care, and imposing such a duty would create an intolerable burden of potential liability on retail occupiers. A trial judge's finding of fact that is inconsistent with the witness's own evidence cannot be sustained merely because the witness was accepted as credible.