Australian Safeway Stores V Zaluzna Summary

555 Words2 Pages

Case Analysis – Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna
Facts
The respondent (Zaluzna, plaintiff) entered the foyer of a supermarket owned by the appellant (Australian Safeway Stores, defendant), of which due to wet weather conditions, the flood had become, “wet or moist”. The respondent slipped and fell on the floor, causing injuries to the respondent. The respondent sued for damages resulting of negligence, and a breach of the general duty of care, and the special duty of care owed by an occupier to an invitee.
Zaluzna sued for damages in the Supreme Court, appealing to the Full Court following Tadgell J judgment. The defendant appealed by special leave to the High Court of Australia.
Issues
1. The standard of the duty of care owed by the occupier of a premise to the invitee.
2. The concurrent existence of a general duty and a special duty.
Outcome
The majority found that the appellant owed a general duty of care to avoid a foreseeable risk to the respondent, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court made no conclusions on if there was a breach.
Legal Reasoning …show more content…

All that in all the relevant circumstances including the fact of the defendant's occupation of premises and the manner of the plaintiff's entry upon them, the defendant owed a duty of care under the ordinary principles of negligence to the plaintiff. A prerequisite of any such duty is that there be the necessary degree of proximity of relationship. The touchstone of its existence is that there be reasonable foreseeability of a real risk of injury to the visitor or to the class of person of which the visitor is a member. The measure of the discharge of the duty is what a reasonable man would, in the circumstances, do by way of response to the foreseeable

Show More
Related

  • Duty of Care in Kamloops v. Nielson

    694 Words  | 2 Pages

    The case of Kamloops v. Nielson was a landmark decision for tort law, since it established the duty of care principle in Canadian private law, which prior to this case was used in the Anns v. Merton case and expanded the scope of duty first identified in Donoghue v. Stevenson. In the historic case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, duty of care was established to include anyone that could be foreseeably harmed by someone’s actions, creating the neighbour principle. The Anns v. Merton case expanded the scope of the neighbour principle to including public bodies, such as the municipality. The case involved a faulty building foundation, which resulting in requiring repairs for the house, and whether the municipality should have to pay for the repairs, since it was the job of the municipality to inspect and ensure the building was properly constructed. Whether public tax allocations should be subject to tort litigations was placed in question in the case but the municipality was held liable for damages nevertheless.

    Read More

  • Mamo V Surace Case Study

    1105 Words  | 3 Pages

    The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .

    Read More

  • Parson Case Study

    860 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...who violated Randy’s rights. With such little evidence from the Plaintiff, and the fact that Caruso is not a medical professional, she was not involved in the making of policies and procedures relating to medical matters. Therefore, Caruso did not act with deliberate indifference and was entitled summary judgment, because Plaintiff Parsons failed to provide sufficient evidence on Caruso.

    Read More

  • Essay On Gross Negligence Manslaughter

    1402 Words  | 3 Pages

    After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the

    Read More

  • Mckichan V. St. Louis Hockey Club Case Study

    1152 Words  | 3 Pages

    They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary

    Read More

  • Brownlee V. General Apartment Company, 133 Ga

    611 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ga code states that the owner of premises is liable to any damages to persons for injuries caused by failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-3-1 (2016). In Brownlee v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, 240 Ga. App. 368, 523 S.E.2d 596 (1999), the court defined the concept of premises liability to depend on pre-existing conditions, the proprietor’s superior knowledge of the defects on the premises and a foreseeable knowledge that the proprietor’s actions or inaction would cause injury to the plaintiff. Based on the facts of our case it is clear that the apartment manager was negligent in keeping the premises safe. Ms. Traylor was informed that the premises were safe due to a number of factors that included a well-lit parking lot. However, after she complained to of the physical defects within the parking lot, no action was taken to fix the defect.

    Read More

  • Case Study: Susan Is Shopping In A Supermarket

    1666 Words  | 4 Pages

    On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Contributory Negligence

    1770 Words  | 4 Pages

    In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.

    Read More

  • Wardak V. Froom Essay

    1274 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the tort law case of Wardak v Froom, Dean Wardak an 18 year old boy became a quadriplegic when he drove impaired into a fire hydrant and tree. He had previously attended his friend Graeme Frooms 19th birthday party. This party was hosted in the home of the Frooms, where his parents supervised the guests, it should be noted that no guests were served alcohol by the hosts it was BYOB. The plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Wardak argue that the Frooms owed a duty of care to their son, and should be held responsible for the injuries that Dean now suffers. The defendants relied on the case Childs v Desormeaux in proving their social host liability.

    Read More

  • Occupier's Liability

    1131 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, in accordance with the law, 'reasonable measures' need to be taken to secure the welfare of both groups. The Duty of Care owed to Lawful Visitors Section 2 (2) of the Occupier's Lia... ... middle of paper ... ... tandard of care owed differentiates.

    Read More

  • Premise Liability Case

    1033 Words  | 3 Pages

    When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.

    Read More

  • Diminished Responsibility Essay

    548 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jury response reflected the publics reaction rather than the rule of law and it was illustrated well that “in practice medical evidence alone may not be sufficient for the defence to succeed.” The jury did not except that there was a “substantially impaired responsibility”, which they considered to be a moral as well as a medical

    Read More

  • Foss V Harbottle Case Analysis

    1038 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...

    Read More

  • Understanding the Doctrine of Proportionality in Law

    2316 Words  | 5 Pages

    In this case, the Respondent was working as the Superintendent of Central Excise. He was subjected to a punishment of withholding 50% of the pension and 50% of his gratuity. A writ petition was filed in the High Court which was later moved to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held the punishment to be too severe. Again an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that the original punishment was not found to be too severe when the Wednesbury Test was applied to it and hence, it was rational and reasonable. This Court observed that:

    Read More

  • Occupiers' Liability from the Common Law

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

    Read More

More about Australian Safeway Stores V Zaluzna Summary

Open Document