Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan

[2017] NSWCA 202

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Supermarket slip and fall
5. › Grape on floor
6. › Whether occupier breached duty of care
7. › Whether system of inspection adequate
8. › Whether casual act of negligence by employee
9. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Reasonable precautions
5. › Whether failure to observe single grape on floor constituted failure to keep proper lookout
6. › Distinction between proper lookout and perfect lookout
7. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B(1)(c)
1. Evidence
2. › Inferences
3. › Jones v Dunkel inference
4. › Whether failure to call employees justified adverse inference
5. › Whether evidentiary burden on defendant to call witnesses
6. › Whether inference can fill gap in plaintiff's evidence
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review of factual findings
3. › Whether finding supported by evidence
4. › Whether finding speculative

Quick Take

A finding that an occupier's system of inspection and cleaning could not be improved is inconsistent with a finding of negligence for failure to detect a hazard, absent proof of a departure from that system. The duty to keep a proper lookout for hazards on the floor does not require a perfect lookout, and the failure to observe a single grape while attending to other duties and navigating around customers does not constitute negligence. A Jones v Dunkel inference cannot be drawn against an occupier for failing to call employees where the plaintiff did not establish facts requiring an answer and did not seek such an inference at trial.