The case of Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5 is a significant Australian legal decision concerning public liability and negligence. Here’s a brief summary of the case and judgment.
| Strong v Woolworths Limited T/as Big W & Anor [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182; 86 ALJR 267; 285 ALR 420 |
| Court: High Court of Australia |
| Date: 7 March 2012 |
| The bench: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, and Bell JJ |
| Areas of Law: Negligence; Causation in tort law; Duty of care and premises liability; Personal Injury |
Facts of the Case
Ms. Strong, who had an amputated right leg and used crutches, slipped and fell at the Centro Taree Shopping Centre, suffering a serious spinal injury.
The fall was caused when the tip of her crutch hit a greasy chip on the sidewalk sales area, which was under Woolworths’ care. CPT Manager Limited was the owner of the shopping center.
Woolworths did not have a regular inspection or cleaning system for that area; the last check was at 8:00 a.m., and the fall happened around 12:30 p.m.
Procedural History
District Court: Ms. Strong won against Woolworths; CPT Manager Limited (the centre owner) was not held liable.
NSW Court of Appeal: Woolworths argued she couldn’t prove their negligence caused her fall. The Court said even if inspections had happened every 15 minutes, it was uncertain whether the chip would have been removed before the fall, so Ms. Strong lost the appeal. The chip could have fallen just a few minutes before the fall.
High Court of Australia: Ms. Strong appealed by special leave.
Key Legal Issue
Did Woolworths’ negligence actually cause Ms. Strong’s injuries?
High Court Decision in Strong v Woolworths
The High Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. They said the Court of Appeal was wrong to assume the chip might not have been there long enough.
There was no evidence pinpointing when, in the interval between 8.00 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., the chip fell; meaning it could have been on the ground much longer than assumed.
Given the 4.5-hour window, it was more probable than not that the chip had been there long enough.
It found it was probable that the chip had been on the floor for long enough (more than 20 minutes) that it could have been removed by a reasonable cleaning system.
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, Ms. Strong would not have fallen if Woolworths had a proper cleaning system.
Therefore, Woolworths was negligent and responsible for her injury.
Significance (Strong v Woolworths)
Strong v Woolworths emphasized that businesses must maintain safe areas, especially for vulnerable people. It is enough to show that the harm probably would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence. The timing of the hazard’s presence can be inferred from probabilities when exact timing is unknown.
To conclude, Woolworths failed to maintain a safe area, and because the chip was likely there long enough to be cleaned, their negligence caused Ms. Strong’s injury, even if the exact timing of the chip’s drop was unknown.
References:
- https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/other/HCASum/2012/5.html
- https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-2000-current/strong-v-woolworths-limited
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW:
- Hook v Cunard Steamship Co [1953]: A Quick Legal Note
- Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2004]
- Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.