Workplace Slip and Fall on Stairs: Establishing Occupier’s Negligence for Unforeseen Slippage in the Absence of Proven Causation

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 139, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Presiding Judge: Cavanagh J
Cause of Action: Negligence (Occupiers’ Liability)
Judgment Date: 22 February 2024

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Occupier’s Liability
Keyword 3: Slip and Fall Negligence
Keyword 4: Causation in Negligence
Keyword 5: Evidentiary Inconsistencies
Keyword 6: Burden of Proof

Background:

The plaintiff, an individual engaged in process work at the defendant’s potato chip factory in Blacktown, New South Wales, claims damages for personal injury sustained on 25 June 2018. The plaintiff alleges that he slipped down a set of metal steps in the potato preparation area of the defendant’s premises. The area was one where he was required to work daily, and he attributed his fall to the presence of a slippery substance, specifically starchy water, which he claimed had splashed out of an adjacent potato hopper. He further contended that the design of the steps, particularly the handrails not extending the full length, contributed to his fall.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal dispute revolved around whether the defendant, as the occupier of the premises and the party for whom the plaintiff was working, was negligent in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent the plaintiff’s accident. The plaintiff sought damages for the personal injuries he sustained, including right shoulder, arm, neck, back, and psychological injuries, leading to significant economic loss due to an alleged inability to work. The defendant, while admitting an accident occurred, generally denied the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, contending that the steps were not slippery, that the risk was an obvious risk, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The defendant also raised a potential claim for a reduction in liability under section 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) against the plaintiff’s employer.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The plaintiff commenced his work shift at Snack Brands on 25 June 2018 at 15:00. Initially rostered on the UPC line, he was later asked to work on the KF’s potato cutting and pairing station. In the course of his duties, he needed to retrieve a third glove to cover his steel mesh glove. Discovering the glove box at the cutting station was empty, he proceeded to descend a set of metal stairs closest to another glove box. As he was walking down these steps, he slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to his right arm and shoulder. His contemporaneous account stated that he was holding onto both handrails when he slipped “as if something slippery was on the steps.” This incident formed the genesis of his claim, alleging that the defendant’s failure to maintain a safe workplace, specifically by allowing the steps to become wet and contaminated and by providing inadequate handrails, led to his fall and subsequent injuries.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The plaintiff’s case was built on several evidentiary statements and his oral testimony.
His amended statement of claim alleged:
* The steps were located near a potato hopper.
* The steps were “constantly wet due to starchy water splashing out of the potato hopper.”
* The potato hopper was operating without a lid, allowing starchy water to splash.
* Handrails extended only to the first step from the top, not the entire length.
* He slipped on starchy water on the steps.

In his second evidentiary statement (22 November 2023), the plaintiff described slipping on the bottom step just as his left hand came off the handrail, with his right foot slipping on the “wet and contaminated surface.” He claimed the area was “very wet and slippery” with starchy water and potato muck.
However, in oral evidence, he stated he was holding both handrails, placed his right foot on the second step, and then his right foot slipped as he went to place his left foot on the bottom step. He also conceded he had previously found the steps not to be slippery, even when wet, and later agreed he was “just guessing” that white specs in a photograph were potato debris.
The plaintiff relied on expert Denis Cauduro (safety management expert), whose opinion assumed the fall was caused by inadequate handrails and steps contaminated with boiling potato water.

Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The defendant presented evidence from four employees and an expert.
* Kul Bogati (Process Operator): Claimed he saw the plaintiff walking quickly towards the stairs, seemed in a hurry. Did not see the fall but saw the plaintiff at the bottom. Stated he never found the stairs slippery, wet or dry.
* Andrew McKellar (Author of Incident Report): Claimed he inspected the area and found the steps dry and free from debris, supported by a photo. However, his own incident report suggested the steps were wet. He conceded water could splash but maintained it would be cold, not starchy. He could not explain inconsistencies between his statement and the incident report, which also mentioned “wear and tear” and “yearly inspections.”
* Luke Phelps (Engineering Manager): Provided evidence on the structure and material of the stairs, annexing test reports (from 2010 and 2015) showing the material was non-slip.
* Peter Nedelkovski (Team Leader): Confirmed workers used the stairs multiple times daily and stated they were not slippery, wet or dry. He had not witnessed any prior slips or falls.
* Dr John Cooke (Architect): Tested a new sample of the step material, confirming it complied with relevant non-slipperiness standards. His opinion that the plaintiff fell due to an “overstep” was not pursued by the defendant at trial.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Causation: What specific factor caused the plaintiff to slip and fall? Was it starchy water, potato debris, or some other contaminant?
2. Breach of Duty: Did the defendant fail to take reasonable precautions that would have prevented the accident?
3. Condition of Steps: Were the steps actually slippery, either due to their inherent nature, wear and tear, or specific contamination at the time of the accident?
4. Nature of Contaminant: Was the water splashing from the hopper boiling or cold? Was it starchy or fresh? Was potato debris present and causally significant?
5. Adequacy of Handrails: Did the limited extension of the handrails cause or contribute to the fall?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this case, the parties relied on evidentiary statements rather than formal affidavits, serving a similar function in presenting factual accounts. These statements were crucial in constructing the legal narratives for both sides. The Court meticulously examined these statements, especially those from the plaintiff, for consistency and credibility.

The plaintiff’s early statements, including his contemporaneous incident report, described a slip on “something slippery” while holding the handrails. Later, his evidentiary statements and oral testimony provided more detailed, but sometimes conflicting, accounts regarding the specific substance (starchy water vs. cold water, potato debris vs. mere guessing), the exact mechanics of the fall (which foot slipped on which step), and his use of the handrails. These discrepancies became a critical focus during cross-examination, revealing potential “untruths” or at least significant variations in memory and perception over time.

For the defendant, the evidentiary statements of its employees, particularly Mr McKellar, also presented challenges when compared with the contemporaneous incident report he co-authored. The incident report noted the steps were “wet” and identified “wear and tear” as a possible cause and suggested “yearly inspections” and “guarding over the potato hopper.” However, Mr McKellar’s later statement claimed the steps were “dry” and downplayed the amount and nature of any splashed water. The Court’s procedural directions, allowing for supplementary and responsive statements, underscored the Judge’s intent to permit a full and frank disclosure of all relevant factual material, facilitating a comprehensive examination of the evidence at trial. The strategic intent behind comparing these various statements was to test the reliability and accuracy of each party’s factual assertions, which directly impacted the assessment of causation and negligence.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court issued several case management orders to facilitate the progression of the matter. These included:
* Orders for the exchange of evidentiary statements between the parties.
* Granting leave to the plaintiff to rely on a supplementary statement served out of time.
* Granting leave to the defendant to rely on further responsive statements.
* Orders for the exchange of expert reports on liability and damages.
* Directions for the experts to meet in conclave and prepare a joint report.
* Directions for the experts to give oral evidence at trial, albeit with limited scope for examination.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing saw a direct confrontation of the factual accounts and expert opinions. The plaintiff’s testimony was subjected to rigorous cross-examination, exposing significant inconsistencies. Initially, he claimed to be holding both handrails and implied he slipped due to their limited length. However, his oral evidence shifted to his right foot slipping on an upper step while attempting to place his left foot on the bottom step. Critically, he conceded that he had not found the steps slippery in his three months of daily use prior to the accident and that they were designed to be non-slip when wet. His assertion that white specs in a photograph were potato debris was reduced to “just guessing” under cross-examination. Furthermore, his claim of “boiling starchy water” was contradicted by his later inability to confirm if the water was boiling and by the defendant’s evidence that any splash would be cold, fresh water. These logical inconsistencies deeply undermined the plaintiff’s credibility regarding the precise cause of his fall.

The defendant’s witnesses, particularly Mr McKellar, also faced challenges regarding the coherence of their accounts. Mr McKellar’s contemporaneous incident report referred to “wet” steps and discussed “wear and tear” and possible safety improvements (e.g., guarding the potato hopper). Yet, in his evidentiary statement, he asserted the steps were “dry” and sought to downplay the amount and nature of any splashed water. The Court noted his “unable to explain the differences,” affecting the weight given to his subsequent recollections. However, the defendant’s witnesses consistently stated there had been no prior complaints or accidents on the stairs, and that the steps were of non-slip material.

The expert evidence, though comprehensive, ultimately proved of limited assistance. The plaintiff’s expert, Mr Cauduro, based his opinions on assumptions regarding boiling starchy water and inadequate handrails, assumptions that were largely unproven or contradicted by the plaintiff’s own concessions. The defendant’s expert, Dr Cooke, tested a new sample of the step material for slipperiness, which, while showing compliance with standards, could not definitively speak to the condition of the actual steps at the time of the accident. The Judge observed that “the value of an expert opinion tends to fall away when the assumptions on which the expert relies are not made out.”

The facts drove the result through a meticulous evaluation of the evidence. The Court found that the plaintiff’s shifting narrative regarding the cause of the fall, combined with the lack of independent evidence supporting his claims of a specific hazard (like starchy water or potato debris) and the defendant’s consistent evidence of a safe environment, meant the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden of proof.

Her Honour Cavanagh J stated:

“In all of these circumstances, it seems likely that the plaintiff may have fallen due a combination or coincidence of circumstances. His description of the mechanics of the fall raises the possibility that his right foot was on the edge of the upper step. There may have been something on the step (that is some form of contaminant) but the plaintiff has not established what it was. He may have been in a hurry, although he denies this. I cannot be satisfied that the presence of the cold water on the steps made them slippery and unsafe.”

This statement was determinative as it pinpointed the fatal flaw in the plaintiff’s case: the inability to definitively prove what caused his fall, moving the claim from a specific actionable hazard to mere conjecture.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered its final judgment in favour of the defendant.

The Court made the following orders:
1. Judgment for the defendant.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.
3. Grant liberty to apply should either party seek a variation of that costs order.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the formidable challenge faced by plaintiffs in slip and fall claims when the precise cause of the fall remains unproven. It highlights that while occupiers have a high duty of care, they are not insurers of safety. The jurisprudential value lies in the re-affirmation that the burden of proving both a breach of duty and causation rests squarely on the plaintiff, and this burden is not discharged by mere inference, speculation, or inconsistent accounts, even in a workplace setting. The Court’s approach to dissecting the plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates a rigorous application of the common law principles governing negligence claims, particularly the requirement for tangible proof of the alleged hazard and its causal link to the injury. The case is unusual in the extent of the plaintiff’s shifting narrative under oath, which ultimately became a critical factor in the failure of his claim.

Judgment Points:

1. Credibility and Consistency of Evidence: The Court placed significant weight on the inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s own accounts, from his initial incident report to his later evidentiary statements and oral testimony. His concessions during cross-examination, such as “just guessing” about potato debris and having found the steps non-slippery previously, critically undermined his claims about the steps’ hazardous condition.
2. Lack of Specific Causation: The plaintiff failed to definitively establish what specific substance or defect on the steps caused him to slip. Without proving the nature of the alleged contaminant (e.g., starchy water versus cold water, potato debris versus general wetness), the Court could not find that the steps were rendered excessively slippery or unsafe.
3. Absence of Prior Incidents: The defendant’s consistent evidence that there were no prior reports, complaints, or accidents on the stairs, despite their daily and extensive use by multiple workers, indicated that the defendant was not on notice of any specific hazard requiring preventative action. This weighs heavily against a finding of an unreasonable failure to take precautions.
4. Nature of Expert Evidence: The utility of expert evidence was diminished because the factual assumptions upon which the experts relied were not established by the evidence. Testing a new sample of material could not prove the condition of the actual steps at the time of the accident, nor could expert opinions based on “boiling starchy water” stand when the presence of such water was not proven.
5. Limited Causal Role of Handrails: Despite initial pleadings, the plaintiff ultimately conceded that the limited extension of the handrails was not causally relevant to his fall, further narrowing the alleged breaches of duty.
6. Occupier’s Duty vs. Guarantor: The judgment reiterates that the defendant’s duty of care, while high in a workplace, does not make them a guarantor of the plaintiff’s safety. Accidents can occur from a “combination or coincidence of circumstances” without necessarily implying negligence.

Legal Basis:

The Judge referred to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), particularly section 5B (general principles of negligence regarding duty of care, foreseeability, and not insignificant risk) and section 5F (obvious risk, though not determinative here). The decision underscores common law principles of occupier’s liability and the standard of care. The Court cited:
* Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 at 345 (Gummow J) for the principle that duties are discharged by the exercise of reasonable care.
* Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196 at [32]-[33] (Heydon JA) and Stannus v Graham (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-293 at 61,566 (Handley JA) for the inherent but obvious dangers of stairs and the difficulty of attributing liability for every imaginable danger.
* Rabay v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199 at [73] (McColl JA) regarding the burden on the defendant to prove residual earning capacity in a damages claim (though this was a hypothetical assessment in the present case).

Evidence Chain:

The defendant’s case was bolstered by a consistent chain of evidence:
* The steps were constructed from appropriate non-slip material, meeting regulatory standards when installed, and had a rough, gritty surface.
* There were no prior reports, complaints, or incidents of anyone slipping on these steps despite their frequent use by workers.
* Any water splashing from the potato hopper was likely cold, fresh water, not boiling or starchy, and the steps were designed for use in wet conditions.
* The contemporaneous incident report, while noting “wet” steps, did not identify “starchy water” or “potato debris” as the cause, and Mr McKellar’s inspection found them “dry and free from debris.”

Judicial Original Quotation:

Her Honour Cavanagh J, in evaluating the plaintiff’s failure to establish a specific cause for his fall, stated:

“Giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he was not the author of his own misfortune only leads to a finding that the plaintiff slipped on the steps for reasons which have not been established. There may be a number of possibilities but neither the positioning of the hand rail nor the presence of starchy or boiling starchy water on the steps caused his accident. In other words, he has not established that which he pleaded as the cause of his accident.
I am satisfied that he fell because his foot slipped out from under him rather than that he fell because he missed the step completely but I am unable to be satisfied as to why his foot slipped out from under him.”

This judicial observation directly articulates the plaintiff’s failure to meet the crucial element of causation, indicating that while a fall occurred, the specific actionable negligence leading to it could not be proven on the balance of probabilities.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The plaintiff’s case failed primarily because he could not definitively establish the causal link between the defendant’s alleged negligence and his injury. Key reasons for this failure include:
* Inconsistent Factual Accounts: The plaintiff’s varying descriptions of how he fell, what he slipped on, and his use of the handrails significantly damaged his credibility.
* Unproven Hazard: He failed to prove the presence of the specific hazardous substance (starchy or boiling water, potato debris) he pleaded as the cause of his fall. His concessions that he was “guessing” about potato debris and that he had not found the steps slippery before undermined his central argument.
* Lack of Prior Notice: There was no evidence that the defendant had any prior notice of the steps being unsafe, either through previous incidents or complaints, which would have obligated them to take specific preventative measures.
* Design and Material of Steps: The evidence confirmed the steps were constructed from appropriate non-slip material and designed for use in wet conditions. The mere presence of cold water, without evidence it made the steps excessively slippery, was insufficient to establish a breach.
* Failure to Prove Causal Significance of Handrails: The plaintiff ultimately conceded that the positioning of the handrails was not causally relevant to his accident, abandoning a key pleaded breach.

Implications
1. The Burden of Proof is Real: If you suffer an injury, you must clearly prove what caused it and that someone else’s negligence directly led to it. Vague or inconsistent accounts can weaken your case significantly.
2. Document Everything Immediately: Contemporaneous records, like incident reports, are vital. Ensure your account is accurate and detailed from the outset, as inconsistencies can be used to challenge your credibility later.
3. Not Every Accident Means Negligence: Property owners and employers have a duty to provide a safe environment, but they are not guarantors against all accidents. A fall, in itself, does not automatically imply someone else was at fault.
4. Expert Evidence Relies on Facts: Expert opinions are only as strong as the factual foundation they are built upon. If the underlying facts are not proven, the expert’s conclusions may be disregarded by the Court.
5. Understand Your Workplace Risks: While employers must take precautions, employees also have a responsibility to be aware of and navigate obvious workplace hazards like stairs. If a surface is usually safe, proving an unusual hazardous condition is critical.

Q&A Session
Q1: Why did the Court assess damages if the plaintiff’s claim for negligence failed?
A1: It is standard practice in many jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court of New South Wales, for a judge to assess damages even if they ultimately find against the plaintiff on liability. This is done to provide a complete record of the Court’s findings, which can be useful in the event of an appeal or to avoid further litigation if the liability finding is overturned. It also demonstrates the potential financial consequences that would have arisen if negligence had been proven.

Q2: What is “occupier’s liability” in simple terms?
A2: Occupier’s liability refers to the legal responsibility that a person or entity (the “occupier”) who controls premises owes to people who come onto those premises. This duty requires the occupier to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable risks of harm to visitors. The level of care depends on various factors, including the type of premises, the nature of the risk, and the relationship between the occupier and the visitor. It doesn’t mean the occupier guarantees safety, but rather that they must act reasonably to make the premises safe.

Q3: The defendant’s incident report mentioned “wear and tear” and “yearly inspections.” Why wasn’t this sufficient for the plaintiff to win?
A3: While the incident report mentioned “wear and tear” and suggested “yearly inspections” as potential improvements, the Court found there was no evidence that these steps were actually defective or excessively slippery due to wear and tear at the time of the accident. Furthermore, there were no prior complaints or incidents, suggesting the defendant was not on notice of a specific problem. The mere suggestion of potential improvements after an accident does not automatically establish that a breach of duty occurred before the accident, especially when the plaintiff could not prove the fall was caused by an identifiable defect or hazard related to wear.

---

Appendix: Core Practical Component Library

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Personal Injury – Workplace Slip & Fall Negligence (Occupiers’ Liability)
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

⑦ Personal Injury and Compensation
Core Test (Negligence under the Civil Liability Act):
* Was there a Duty of Care owed? The defendant, as the occupier of the premises and the party controlling the workplace, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, who was lawfully on its premises and working under its control, to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable risks of harm.
* Was there a Breach of Duty (was the risk foreseeable and not insignificant)? Section 5B(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) requires an assessment of whether:
* The risk of harm was foreseeable (i.e., the defendant knew or ought to have known of the risk).
* The risk was not insignificant.
* A reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken precautions against the risk (balancing the probability of harm, likely seriousness of harm, burden of taking precautions, and social utility).
The plaintiff alleged breach through failure to clean, inspect, provide a safe system of work, warn, prevent splashing, cover the hopper, and provide full-length handrails. The Court acknowledged the risk of slipping on steps was foreseeable and not insignificant but found no breach of the specific precautions alleged.
* Did the breach cause the injury (Causation)? Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) sets out the requirements for causation:
* Factual Causation (s 5D(1)(a)): Was the negligence a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm? This involves applying the “but for” test. But for the defendant’s alleged breach, would the plaintiff have suffered the injury? The plaintiff must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s specific negligent act or omission directly caused the fall.
* Scope of Liability (s 5D(1)(b)): Is it appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused? This involves normative considerations.
The plaintiff failed on factual causation, as the Court was not satisfied as to why his foot slipped out from under him, thus failing to link any proven breach to the fall.
* Core Test (Damages): If negligence and causation are established, the plaintiff would then claim damages for economic loss (past and future loss of earning capacity), non-economic loss (pain and suffering, loss of amenity), and past/future gratuitous or commercial care. Section 15 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) sets a threshold for gratuitous care (must be provided for at least 6 hours per week for at least 6 months), which the Court found the plaintiff would not have met. Non-economic loss is also subject to statutory thresholds and caps (s 16).
* Is there contributory negligence? The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. If found, this would reduce the damages awarded. This was not determined given the finding against liability.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If dealing with [Civil / Commercial / Property / Family / Estate] matters:
While this case was a direct negligence claim under common law and statute, in broader civil litigation, parties might explore equitable avenues if a direct statutory or contractual claim is not feasible.
* Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel: This principle allows a party to seek relief if they relied to their detriment on a clear and unequivocal promise or representation made by another party, and it would be unconscionable for the promising party to go back on their word. For example, if the defendant had promised to make specific safety upgrades that induced the plaintiff to continue working in the area, and then failed to do so, leading to injury, estoppel might be considered in a hypothetical scenario, though not directly applicable to the core facts here.
* Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust: This arises where one party has received a benefit at another’s expense in circumstances where it would be unjust for them to retain that benefit. In a personal injury context, it is typically not directly applicable, as the claim is for compensation for harm rather than restitution of a benefit.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:
For personal injury claims in New South Wales, there is typically a limitation period of three years from the date the cause of action is discoverable (or from the date of the injury in most cases) for commencing proceedings (Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)). The plaintiff in this case commenced proceedings within the typical timeframe.
Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Personal Injury: Limitation period expired? Extensions may be granted under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (e.g., s 60F) if there is an injustice caused by the expiry, typically upon the discovery of latent damage or in cases of legal incapacity. In this specific case, the plaintiff was within the limitation period.
Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* The high evidentiary threshold for proving causation in slip and fall negligence cases, particularly where the plaintiff’s account of the incident and the alleged hazard is inconsistent.
* The application of s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) regarding reasonable precautions where there is no evidence of prior incidents or notice of a specific hazard.
* The diminishing weight of expert evidence when the factual assumptions upon which it is based are not established by the evidence led at trial.
Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves a plaintiff failing to establish the precise cause of a slip and fall, or where their evidence is inconsistent regarding the hazard, citing Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 139 can strengthen your argument that the burden of proof has not been discharged.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasize the [uniqueness] of the current matter, for instance, by demonstrating clear, consistent evidence of a specific hazard, prior complaints or incidents, or an explicit breach of safety standards, to argue that this precedent is not applicable due to different factual findings on causation or notice.
Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Plaintiff / Defendant or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
This judgment from the Supreme Court of New South Wales serves as a critical reminder that while the law imposes a duty of care on occupiers to maintain safe premises, a plaintiff must still discharge the rigorous burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, both the breach of that duty and the direct causal link between the breach and the injury suffered. The meticulous scrutiny of evidence, especially witness consistency, is paramount in establishing the factual basis for negligence. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Macari v Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 139), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.