NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Corrigan v Coles Supermarkets Australia Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 238 Hearing dates: 24, 26, 27, 28 April; 1 and 2 May 2017 Date of orders: 08 May 2017 Decision date: 08 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: P Taylor SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendant. (2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – slip and fall – supermarket – water – right elbow injury – system of inspection and cleaning Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995, s 64 Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B, s 5D, s 15 Cases Cited: Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael James Corrigan (plaintiff) Coles Supermarkets Australia Ltd (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr S Roulstone (plaintiff) Mr D Priestley (defendant)
Solicitors: LHD Lawyers (plaintiff) McCulloch and Buggy (defendant) File Number(s): 2016/60944 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
A. INTRODUCTION 1. Michael Corrigan slipped, fell and fractured his elbow at the Coles Engadine store on 11 November 2015. He sues Coles for damages.
B. ISSUES 1. The proceedings raise the following issues: 1. Was the floor wet when Mr Corrigan slipped. 2. Was Coles negligent in failing to have a proper system: 1. to identify and remove water on the floor; or 2. to lay a mat in the area of the wet floor. 1. Would the precaution of an appropriate system involving a dedicated person to identify and remove water or the precaution of utilising a mat in the area of the wet floor have prevented the injury to Mr Corrigan. 2. What percentage of a most extreme case should be adopted in relation to Mr Corrigan's injuries and disabilities. 3. What amount of future medical expenses is Mr Corrigan likely to incur as a result of his fall. 4. What level of domestic care was provided to Mr Corrigan as a result of his fall and injuries and what level of care is reasonably needed for the future. 5. What is the proper quantum of damages. 1. Other matters pleaded, including other particulars of negligence and some statutory claims, were not pressed at trial.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate