A " Compensation " Reversal !

The retail fruit and vegetable industry will be cheered by a decision made in the court of appeal this week.  It overturned a District Court decision that awarded a woman $ 150,000 compensation and court costs after she slipped on a grape and fell in a Woolworths store.

What seemed to be the determining factor was evidence given that the mishap had been caused by just a single grape that somehow managed to escape the notice of staff tasked with patrolling to eliminate such hazards.  The justices specifically noted that customers have an obligation to maintain vigilance for hazards on the floor and found that in this case the supermarket had taken reasonable care to keep the area safe.

Modern merchandising poses hazards for both customers and the business community because the courts have become accustomed to handing out huge compensation judgements in borderline cases of responsibility.   In a past era there was a distinct barrier between the customers and the merchandise. Usually this took the form of a counter and the staff behind that counter  weighed and packed the product before handing it to the customer.

We now live in the " self serve " age.  The customer has access to the merchandise and when it comes to fruit and vegetables, handles the goods and selects whatever quantity they wish to pack and take to the checkout.  That introduces a high risk factor for accidents where careless handling allows slippery fruit or vegetable matter to contaminate the floor.

We also live in an age of litigation.  When someone has a fall that can possibly be attributed to a hazard on the floor it is very tempting to take the matter to court in the expectation of compensation for not only the injury, but pain and suffering and the loss of income while the sufferer is absent from work.  In many cases, the medical diagnosis can be vague and the aftermath may linger for months.

It is not unknown for accidents to be staged specifically to open the door for compensation litigation and often the  time chosen is when peak crowds are present and the staff are less likely to be able to maintain total floor cleanliness.   A quick photo taken with a mobile phone at that time provides conclusive evidence if customer selection of the merchandise has resulted in obvious floor contamination.

A shop that fails to maintain floor hygiene in its fruit and vegetable section deserves the attention of the courts but is now seems that they are leaning on the need for customers to take personal care when they approach an area where hazards can be anticipated.  In particular, if a customer is distracted by their mobile phone and not looking where they are treading the courts may in future not be so accommodating.

In this Woolworths incident, the court not only reversed the District court decision, it found the customer responsible to pay the supermarkets costs and that could run to a serious sum of money. It will certainly have cause for many people to stop and think before they rush to legal action now that the courts have stopped handing out fortunes  like Santa Claus.