Case Analysis – Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna
Facts
The respondent (Zaluzna, plaintiff) slipped and fell due to wet weather causing the floor to become, ‘wet or moist, in a supermarket foyer owned by the appellant (Australian Safeway Stores, defendant). The fall caused injuries to the respondent, in which she 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. 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 …show more content…
Brennan J continued with the view that the facts of the present case did not give rise to a general duty of care, as stated in Donoghue v Stevenson. Accordingly, the standard of care expected should be, ‘no wider or more onerous duty imposed on the appellant than that defined in Indermaur v Dames.’ Indermaur states, ‘that it was the appellant's obligation to take reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger of which it knew or ought to have known.’ And that there was no evidence of mopping to create an unusual danger, for a standard of care apart from the special duty to …show more content…
Mason J found:
“In relation at least to a person in the position of an invitee, Anderson v Voli must be taken as settling that the duty of an occupier, even as it is expressed in the Indermaur v. Dames formulation, is no more and no less than the ordinary duty of reasonable care. ”
Mason J did not, ‘regard the notion of concurrent duties to be inconsistent with the duty of an occupier to an invitee to being itself a duty to exercise reasonable care.’ Wilson J continued being unable to differentiate the two duties, with reference to Cardy. These views suggest that the standard of care should be held at a general duty, as they are indistinguishable. Ultimately the court failed to see the justification for retaining the special duties. The majority suggested that the standard should remain that of a general duty, as per the following:
“…that the special duties do not travel beyond the general law of negligence. They are no more than an expression of the general law in terms appropriate to the particular situation it was designed to
Facts
The respondent (Zaluzna, plaintiff) slipped and fell due to wet weather causing the floor to become, ‘wet or moist, in a supermarket foyer owned by the appellant (Australian Safeway Stores, defendant). The fall caused injuries to the respondent, in which she 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. 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 …show more content…
Brennan J continued with the view that the facts of the present case did not give rise to a general duty of care, as stated in Donoghue v Stevenson. Accordingly, the standard of care expected should be, ‘no wider or more onerous duty imposed on the appellant than that defined in Indermaur v Dames.’ Indermaur states, ‘that it was the appellant's obligation to take reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger of which it knew or ought to have known.’ And that there was no evidence of mopping to create an unusual danger, for a standard of care apart from the special duty to …show more content…
Mason J found:
“In relation at least to a person in the position of an invitee, Anderson v Voli must be taken as settling that the duty of an occupier, even as it is expressed in the Indermaur v. Dames formulation, is no more and no less than the ordinary duty of reasonable care. ”
Mason J did not, ‘regard the notion of concurrent duties to be inconsistent with the duty of an occupier to an invitee to being itself a duty to exercise reasonable care.’ Wilson J continued being unable to differentiate the two duties, with reference to Cardy. These views suggest that the standard of care should be held at a general duty, as they are indistinguishable. Ultimately the court failed to see the justification for retaining the special duties. The majority suggested that the standard should remain that of a general duty, as per the following:
“…that the special duties do not travel beyond the general law of negligence. They are no more than an expression of the general law in terms appropriate to the particular situation it was designed to