The recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2024] NSWCA 121 confirms the critical role of causation in negligence law in personal injury claims in New South Wales.
Background
On 31 May 2021 at 5:11 pm Ms Gomez sustained an injury to her right knee when she slipped on a piece of mango in the entrance area of the Woolworths store at the MetCentre in the CBD of Sydney.
Woolworths staff members were working near the fallen mango, one at the coffee counter a few metres away, another in the self-checkout area, and a third had passed through after finishing his work shift. CCTV footage revealed that a customer dropped the mango at 5:02 pm and it was subsequently squashed by other customers entering and exiting the busy store.
Decision in the First Instance
Ms Gomez filed proceedings against Woolworths in the District Court of New South Wales claiming the store breached its duty of care as an occupier by failing to maintain proper cleaning or inspection systems or to follow their existing systems.
Woolworths had a 'Clean as you Go' policy, where staff would monitor for spills or contaminants during their workday. Additionally, a 'service zero' call practice required staff to check the store for hazards every hour. There was no evidence that there was a 'service zero' call at 4:00 pm or 5:00 pm. The last time the area was inspected before the accident was at 4:05 pm. The defendant's Assistant Store Manager conceded in evidence that sometimes the 'service zero' call was missed or was 'a bit late'.
The court found Woolworths breached its duty of care. A reasonable entity in Woolworths' position would have ensured compliance with its cleaning and inspection systems, considering the minimal burden and significant risk of harm from non-compliance. However, the court did not find the staff negligent for failing to notice the mango, given their respective positions and responsibilities.
Despite Woolworths' negligence in following its systems, the court concluded causation was not established. The store entrance should have been inspected at 5:00 pm, but this would not have prevented the incident since the mango was dropped at 5:02 pm.
Appeal
Ms. Gomez appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging both the breach and causation findings. She challenged the primary judges' findings on two main grounds:
- Whether the primary judge erred in not finding additional breaches occurred due to two employees failing to identify and remove the fruit between 5:02 pm and 5:11 pm under the 'clean as you go' system; and
- Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the breaches of duty caused the appellant's injuries.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court (Bell CJ, Gleeson JA, and Adamson JA) dismissed the Appeal.
The Court of Appeal highlighted the timing issue, since the mango was dropped at 5:02 pm and Ms. Gomez fell at 5:11 pm, inspections at 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm would not have prevented the incident. Although Ms. Gomez argued that these inspections were sometimes not performed precisely on the hour, the Court did not infer that Woolworths had an obligation to extend the 'service zero' calls in a way that would have prevented the accident.
Additionally, the Court ruled that any breach of the 'Clean as you Go' policy was not causally relevant. Staff adhered to this policy within their work areas, and there was no need for the coffee counter staff to inspect the store entrance during the relevant period.
The Court of Appeal upheld the original findings, affirming there was no basis to disturb the primary judges' breach analysis.
Implications
The Court of Appeal's decision emphasises the crucial role of causation in negligence law in New South Wales. It is a critical reminder that demonstrating a breach of duty alone does not entitle a plaintiff to damages if the outcome would have been unchanged regardless of the breach. This case serves as a reminder that establishing causation is vital to success of a personal injury claim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.