Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited Case Brief
The trial judge found that Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (the appellant) already mopped up the wet floor to perform its duties, it did not show unreasonable. As a result, he found that the appellant did not breach the duty of care and so he dismissed the respondent's suit. (Zaluzna)
However, the respondent appeal to the Full Court and stated that the Trial Judge was wrong in law in finding that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a general duty of care. The Counsel held three reasons for supporting to appeal. The first was occupier's liability and the Store did owe the special duty to Mrs. Zaluzna described in Indermaur v. Dames, the second was that the trail judge should have considered the different situations that led …show more content…
Other entrants under a contract, the duties owed to them that were depended on the terms of the contract.
(c) Trespasser : a person who entered the property without permission, however, children who trespass may be considered as licensees. The occupier's duty was to prevent reckless or intentional harm.
Thus, Counsel for the Australian Safeway Stores Pty. Limited argued that Mrs. Zaluzna was invitee and the damage wasn't unusual. She should have knew the danger because of the wet weather.
Judgement :
The High Court considered all circumstances and then rejected to apply the traditional approach of occupiers' liability in this case and stated that the general duty of care described in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) MKHL 100. It should be applied to all cases. On 26 Aug 1928, Mrs. Donoghue went to the Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisle, her friend ordered a ginger beer for her. When she was drinking the ginger beer, she discovered a dead snail in the bottle. Then she got severe gastroenteritis and shock. After that she sued the ginger manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her because the risk was reasonably foreseeability and Mr. Stevenson should have ensured the product's safety even though they had no contractual
However, the respondent appeal to the Full Court and stated that the Trial Judge was wrong in law in finding that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a general duty of care. The Counsel held three reasons for supporting to appeal. The first was occupier's liability and the Store did owe the special duty to Mrs. Zaluzna described in Indermaur v. Dames, the second was that the trail judge should have considered the different situations that led …show more content…
Other entrants under a contract, the duties owed to them that were depended on the terms of the contract.
(c) Trespasser : a person who entered the property without permission, however, children who trespass may be considered as licensees. The occupier's duty was to prevent reckless or intentional harm.
Thus, Counsel for the Australian Safeway Stores Pty. Limited argued that Mrs. Zaluzna was invitee and the damage wasn't unusual. She should have knew the danger because of the wet weather.
Judgement :
The High Court considered all circumstances and then rejected to apply the traditional approach of occupiers' liability in this case and stated that the general duty of care described in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) MKHL 100. It should be applied to all cases. On 26 Aug 1928, Mrs. Donoghue went to the Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisle, her friend ordered a ginger beer for her. When she was drinking the ginger beer, she discovered a dead snail in the bottle. Then she got severe gastroenteritis and shock. After that she sued the ginger manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her because the risk was reasonably foreseeability and Mr. Stevenson should have ensured the product's safety even though they had no contractual