The difficulties facing plaintiffs in slip and fall claims: A case summary of Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd (NSWSC) – Personal Injury

The Difficulties Facing Plaintiffs in Slip and Fall Claims: A
Case Summary of Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd (NSWSC)

Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC
139

The NSW Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 139
highlights the responsibility of plaintiffs to prove the factual
basis in slip and fall claims. In Macari, the plaintiff had failed
to establish what had caused his fall and consequently could not
establish what reasonable precautions the defendant, as the
premises occupier, should have taken to prevent the plaintiff from
slipping. This article is a case summary of the Macari v Snack
Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 139 matter.

An overview of the plaintiff’s claim:

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW
against the defendant (Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd) in relation to a
slip and fall incident.

On 25 June 2018, the plaintiff was working onsite at the
defendant’s potato chip factory. Although the plaintiff was
employed by a labour hire company, he was placed at the
defendant’s premises and worked under the defendant’s
control. The plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries after he
slipped down some stairs in the potato preparation area of the
factory.

The plaintiff sued Snack Brands in negligence, claiming that it
breached its duty of care to the plaintiff due to their failure to
take certain actions to ensure that the stairs were safe which he
said had ultimately contributed to him falling.

The plaintiff alleged that Snack Foods was negligent for failing
to:

• Clean or remove contaminates from the staircase;




• Prevent boiling starchy water from splashing onto the
  staircase; and




• Install handrails which extended down the entire length of the
  stairs instead of half-way.

The factual matters in dispute:

Justice Cavanagh noted that this was a case which turned on the
facts, whereby the main issues that were to be determined was how
the incident had occurred.

It was accepted that the plaintiff had slipped at the
defendant’s premises, however there had been no witnesses to
the incident and the plaintiff had given conflicting accounts of
what happened. In the plaintiff’s contemporaneous report, the
plaintiff had stated his fall was due to a slippery substance on
the steps, and that he was holding onto the handrails at the time
of his fall. He also stated that he slipped because the surface on
the steps was wet and contaminated by boiling starchy water.
However, in his oral evidence the plaintiff could not confirm if
the water was in fact boiling or whether there was potato debris in
the area.

The defendant provided evidence that the steps were made of
non-slip material which were designed for wet and dry conditions
and there had been no prior complaints or incidents involving the
stairs. The defendant’s evidence also indicated that the water
that splashed onto the steps was neither hot nor starchy.

Court’s decision:

Justice Cavanagh accepted that Snack Brands owed a duty of care
to the plaintiff to take reasonable precautions to prevent the
accident, however noted that the defendant is not the guarantor of
the plaintiff’s safety.

His Honour also noted the reasoning in
Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196, that
stairs are inherently but obviously dangerous.

In this case, the plaintiff couldn’t prove the length of the
handrail was causally significant to the accident and the court
found no evidence that the steps were defective, inherently unsafe,
or poorly maintained. There was also no evidence of boiling or
starchy water on the stairs at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff was faced with the following
difficulties:

1. He did not establish what caused him to fall; and




2. He did not establish that there were any reasonable precautions
   which the defendant should have taken to prevent him from
   slipping.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the defendant and the
plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.

What does this mean for plaintiffs?

This decision highlights the onus the plaintiff bears in
establishing a breach of duty of care and causation. In this case
it meant that the plaintiff had the responsibility to establish
what caused him to slip down the stairs.

If a plaintiff cannot establish the precise circumstances of
what caused their fall, it is extremely difficult to then establish
what reasonable precautions a defendant should have taken to
prevent the slip and fall accident. The fact that an accident or
incident occurred in the defendant’s premises is not generally
a sufficient basis to attribute responsibility to the defendant and
hold them liable.

This case confirms that whilst occupiers must take reasonable
precautions to prevent accidents from happening, this does not mean
that there is a strict requirement to guarantee safety in all
situations.

Accordingly, if you have been involved in a slip and fall
incident in a public place and suffered injuries, it is recommended
to seek legal advice as soon as possible to determine the basis of
your claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.