Dylan was shopping at Quills Department Store when he slipped on the highly polished floor and broke his leg. As a result he was out of work for four months and he incurred considerable medical expenses. His leg did not heal quickly or completely because of a hereditary bone defect which he suffered. Hence he had to take on lighter work, which did not pay as well as his former employment. ) What legal action is available to Dylan against the proprietor of the store, or the cleaner or the floor polish manufacturer
The case states that Dylan incurred medical expenses due to slipping on the highly polished floor when hopping at Quills Department Store. This case applied to Australian common law, implied terms of negligence. The first issue is whether the proprietor of Quills Department Store is liable to Dylan injury. In order to determine, there are three steps must be satisfied. Firstly, if the proprietor owed a duty of care to Dylan need to be determined.
The cases Australian Safely Stores Pity Ltd v Azalea (1987) 162 CLC 479, Strong v Woolworth Ltd (2012) HCI 5 are applied which implied that a retailer owes a duty to its consumers. In this case, Quills Department Store is an operating store. Dylan is a lawful consumer. The legislations between them satisfied the neighbor test for duty of care set out in Donahue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. The normal rules of negligence applied to the case of property owners and person injured on the property. Therefore, the store owed a duty to take reasonable care to Dylan.
Secondly, it is necessary to examine whether the proprietor had exercise the proper standard of care. The proper standard of care is that how a reasonable person would have responded to the foreseeable risk, to balance risks, consequences and cost. The weighing test is demonstrated in Wong Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLC 40, Graham Barclay Oysters Pity Ltd v Ryan 2000 FCC 1099, Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pity Ltd 2002 HCI 9. Considering the high probability of the risk, it is not difficult that a reasonable person in Sass position would have taken precautions.
However, the store failed to exercise the required standard of care. Finally, whether Dylan losses were directly caused by Sass negligence and whether the losses were reasonably foreseeable. It is necessary to apply a but for test referring to the cases Deals Palace Pity Ltd v Moonbeam Deals Palace Pity Ltd v Bob Names 2009 HCI 48, March v Stammer Pity Ltd (1 991)171 CLC 506, Chapel v Hart 1998 HCI 55. In the present case, if the ASS made the floor properly polished, Dylan would not have slipped.
Therefore, the current loss is caused by Sass negligence and not so remote. In conclusion, the ASS will be liable to Dylan for the damages causes by the breach. The second issue in this case is to determine whether the cleaner is liable to Dylan losses. Firstly, In this case, the cleaner was acting as a service provider. Dylan could be closely and directly affected by the act of the cleaner. As illustrated in Sternest v Hancock and Peters 1939 all ERE 572, the cleaner owe a duty of care to Dylan for the floor she/he polished.
Secondly, according to the case Strong v Woolworth Ltd 2012 HCI 5, if the cleaner had exercised the proper standard of care, Dylan would not have slipped. Thus, the duty owed to Dylan had been breached by the cleaner in this case. Furthermore, the slipping would not have occurred if the cleaner had controlled the polishing level. Therefore, the issue here is factual causation, and the injury is reasonably foreseeable. As a result, the damages for negligence of cleaner can be established in this case.
The third issue is whether the floor polish manufacturer was liable for Dylan injury. As held in McPherson Ltd v Eaton 2005 NCAA 435, the duty of care was not automatically owed to end users in relation to the products it sells. In addition, the injury in this case was not reasonably foreseeable for the floor polish manufacturer, since the manufacturer can not control the way by which the products had been used by their consumers. As far as I am concerned, the proprietor and the cleaner were liable to Dylan injury, except for the floor polish manufacturer.
Dylan can bring an action in negligence to compensate the medical expenses. Will Dylan succeed in a claim for loss of earnings from his change in employment The issue is whether Dylan can bring an action in negligence against the cleaner and proprietor to recover damages for the loss of earnings from his change in employment. First of all, to obtain damages, the remoteness of damages needs to be determined based on whether the defendants negligence was a necessary condition of the plaintiffs loss.
