NEGLIGENCE

CLAIM AGAINST
SUPERMARKET
HE R TA FEJ ZO L LI
 Central Facts of the case
Sangeeta Guru was walking in the fruit and vegetable section of a Coles
supermarket in Sydney west when she slipped on a grape, fell on the floor and
hit her leg on a trolley.
Sangeeta Guru was awarded $90,130 in damages for injuries sustained when
she slipped on a grape at Coles. The court heard Ms. Guru, was shopping in the
store in Cambridge Gardens, on October 19, 2012, when she fell, injuring her
knees, and jarring her back.
While on the floor, Ms. Guru looked at the bottom of her thongs and found a
squashed grape, and more of the fruit on the floor nearby.
An employee came to her aid and told Ms. Guru she had been on her tea break
and hadn't had time to clean up, the court heard.
Dispute resolution bodies involved
• The dispute resolution body involved in this dispute was the NSW
District Court where a judge made a decision to award Ms. Guru
$90,000 in damages. An alternative method this dispute could be
solved is through arbitration. Arbitration is a method of dispute
resolution in which an independent person (known as an arbitrator) is
appointed to listen to both sides of a dispute and make a decision
that is legally binding on the parties. The decision is known as an
arbitral award..
Remedies Awarded
Ms. Guru had claimed more than $1 million in
damages for economic loss, domestic assistance
and out-of-pocket expenses, but Judge Levy found
she was not entitled to damages for past
economic loss, loss of superannuation,
nor for domestic assistance. Instead
Sangeeta Guru was awarded $90, 130 in
damages for her pain and suffering.
The extent to which the principles of justice
were achieved
• Fairness – Fairness means having fair processes and a fair hearing, in this case
fairness was upheld to high extent as Sangeeta Guru had an opportunity to
know the facts of the case and had an opportunity to present her side of
events.
• Equality – Equality means people should be equal before the law and have
the same opportunity to present their case as anyone else without advantage
or disadvantage. In this case equality was upheld as the judge was unbiased
and Sangeeta had the same opportunity to present her side of the case as
anyone else
• Access- Access means that all people should be able to understand their legal
rights and pursue their case. In this case access was upheld to a great extent
because Sangeeta had access to legal representation.