High court determines that it cannot be assumed that hot chips are only eaten at lunch


Autoria(s): Stickley, Amanda P.
Data(s)

2012

Resumo

In Strong v Woolworth Ltd (t/as Big W) (2012) 285 ALR 420 the appellant was injured when she fell at a shopping centre outside the respondent’s premises. The appellant was disabled, having had her right leg amputated above the knee and therefore walked with crutches. One of the crutches came into contact with a hot potato chip which was on the floor, causing the crutch to slip and the appellant to fall. The appellant sued in negligence, alleging that the respondent was in breach of its duty of care by failing to institute and maintain a cleaning system to detect spillages and foreign objects within its sidewalk sales area. The issue before the High Court was whether it could be established on the balance of probabilities as to when the hot chip had fallen onto the ground so as to prove causation in fact...

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/50671/

Publicador

Lawbook Co.

Relação

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/50671/1/Torts_column_May_2012_Strong_v_Woolworths.pdf

Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) High court determines that it cannot be assumed that hot chips are only eaten at lunch. Queensland Lawyer, 32(2), pp. 77-79.

Direitos

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters (Australia/NZ)

Fonte

Faculty of Law; School of Law

Palavras-Chave #180126 Tort Law #Negligence #Causation #Civil Liability Act
Tipo

Journal Article