No Comments

Personal Injury Claim– Slip and Fall Claims

Personal Injury Claim – Slip and Fall

The recent NSW case of Sutherland Shire Council v Safar [2017] concerns a slip and fall personal injury claim. In this case, the injured person slipped on water on the floor of an entertainment centre owned by the defendant. When the case first went to court, it was held that the owner of the centre was liable because the water on the floor was likely to have come from umbrellas. The centre owner had made no provision for wet umbrellas, but which could reasonably been have expected to given that it was raining outside.

The owner of the centre appealed against that decision. However, their Appeal was dismissed on the basis that they had breached their duty of care as an Occupier. This was because they had not taken reasonable steps to control patrons bringing in wet umbrellas and coats into the auditorium or at least minimise the risk which arose from this.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Slip and Fall – Car Parks and Occupiers Liability

Coles Negligent in Carpark Slip and Fall

The case of Bridge v Coles Supermarkets [2017] is a recent example of how occupiers liability applies in supermarket carparks. In this case the injured person claimed damages against Coles (the defendant) when they slipped and fell in the below ground car park of the Coles in Coffs Harbour. He suffered a hip fracture and required a total left hip replacement, in addition to a painful complete revision surgery.

Flooding in the carpark was an identified risk, and thus a non-slip surface was needed. Whilst the plaintiff was wearing thongs when he fell, there was no suggestion that this contributed to his fall. Evidence was provided in Court that there was no way to avoid the wet floor in the carpark. The plaintiff’s wife also gave evidence that she also nearly slipped in the same location when trying to help her husband after his fall.

The Supreme Court of NSW Judge found that the car park surface where the plaintiff slipped was unduly slippery. This was based on expert testing of the surface. Later, He found that were inexpensive products Coles could have used to give the surface a non-slip coating. This risk was one which Coles knew, or should have known bout.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Everyday hazards and injuries

Personal Injury Lawyer Parramatta – Public Liability

Accidents sometimes occur when they are least expected – for example, when taking a walk down the street or doing the grocery shopping.

Often people are unaware of their legal rights when they are injured in those circumstances. They may be unaware that the owner or occupier of the premises has a duty to take reasonable care to prevent certain hazards.

Public liability covers a broad range of claims where injuries are sustained as a result of the negligence of an owner or occupier. Examples of such claims include slip and falls, food poisoning, dog attacks, sporting and playground accidents.

In the event of such an injury, you may be able to bring a claim against the owner or occupier’s insurer.  Depending on the extent of injury, this could include entitlements to lump sum compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, lost wages and domestic assistance.

If you or someone you know is injured in such circumstances it is important to:
Continue reading…

No Comments

Slippery drain causes problems at Sydney Eastern suburbs beach

In Hodgson v Sydney Water Corporation the Plaintiff slipped on the concrete apron of a drain which discharged water onto the beach at Rose Bay. She suffered personal injuries to her right shoulder and wrist and claimed personal injury compensation. It was alleged the drain was mossy and slippery and that Sydney Water Corporation had failed to adequately inspect, maintain or repair it.

The Plaintiff also alleged that no warning sign was visible, however there was a warning sign above the drain facing the sea, stating ‘danger, slippery surface’ with the image of a person slipping.

The Court found the risk of slipping was an obvious one which did away with the duty to warn. However, because the sign was facing the sea rather than towards any pedestrians and ambiguous as to its intended audience, the Defendant was not able to rely on an argument based on s5M Civil Liability Act – that no duty of care was owed because of the presence of a risk warning.
Continue reading…