The limits of liability: nominal damages and contributory negligence in retail slip claim

Background

In Almazaydeh v Gajjh United Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 331, the ACT Supreme Court considered whether a McDonald’s restaurant was liable in negligence after a customer slipped on a wet floor during cleaning operations.

His Honour Mossop J found that the restaurant had breached its duty of care. However, the self-represented Plaintiff was awarded only $14,740 in damages, substantially less than the $2.15million he originally claimed.

The Court will separately hear the parties on legal costs.

The decision highlights the importance of strictly adhering to effective cleaning and warning systems in place and catering for customers of varying abilities and intelligence with a degree of inadvertence, inattention or misjudgement in relation to safety issues.

What happened?

On 17 February 2021, the Plaintiff attended a McDonald’s restaurant in Mitchell, ACT.

At the time, an employee was mopping the floor in the area in front of the service counter. Several large, yellow wet-floor signs were placed around the restaurant.

The Plaintiff walked towards the wet area with his head down looking at his mobile phone, came within one step of a wet floor sign, turned around and headed towards the restrooms. As he returned and approached the wet area, he slipped but did not fall. He steadied himself on the wet floor sign he had approached initially.

The incident was captured by CCTV.

The Plaintiff claimed that the incident caused several injuries, including to both hips, his lower back and right shoulder, and ‘psychological sequelae’. He claimed approximately $2.15 million in damages.

The cleaning system

The Plaintiff alleged that the relevant wet floor sign was not placed at the beginning of the water hazard. The sign was moved to the side and not at the centre of the passageway.

The Defendant submitted that the cleaning operations were obvious, as there was a McDonald’s employee (wearing a red uniform) cleaning the floor with a large red bucket in the Plaintiff’s direct line of sight. There were four large yellow signs in prominent places of the restaurant. The premises were not busy, and other entrants had managed to avoid the cleaning operations. The Plaintiff was not paying attention to where he was walking, and failed to take care of his own safety.

The Court accepted the Plaintiff’s argument that, although initially the passageway into the area had a centrally placed warning sign, by the time the Plaintiff arrived, that sign had been moved to the side and became less prominent - the area affected by the mopping extended beyond the relevant wet floor sign in the direction from which the Plaintiff approached, by approximately 50cm. The Court found this was significant.

While the Plaintiff had the ability to appreciate the danger, his Honour found that a fast-food restaurant must consider that their customers will have varying abilities and intelligence and will not necessarily pay full attention to potential hazards within the premises. The retailer must therefore cater for a degree of inadvertence, inattention or misjudgement by its customers in relation to safety issues.

The Court accepted that, while the Defendant’s cleaning system was reasonable and involved putting out wet floor signs, only mopping a small area at any one time (3m x 3m), and using a dry mop after a wet mop, the CCTV footage of the incident suggested these guidelines were not strictly adhered to - it was apparent that an area greater than the 3m x 3m indicated in the Defendant’s guidelines was mopped at one time.

Causation

The finding of liability did not mean that the Defendant was responsible for the Plaintiff’s alleged medical conditions.

The Plaintiff relied on various medical reports from treating practitioners to attempt to establish that the incident caused his ongoing shoulder and hip conditions. However, those reports relied largely on the history given by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant relied on the independent medico-legal opinion of orthopaedic surgeon Dr Machart, who examined the Plaintiff and had the opportunity to review the CCTV footage.

Dr Machart considered that the mechanism of the incident could have caused a temporary soft tissue injury, but not the more significant shoulder and hip conditions alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Court found that the evidence only established that the incident caused some soft tissue injury lasting no more than a few weeks, and that no psychological injury was attributable to that soft tissue injury.

The Court awarded $20,000 for general damages, which his Honour described as generous.

Regarding treatment expenses, the Plaintiff’s evidence did not establish other expenses in the three-month period following the accident, being the window during which Dr Machart considered analgesics and physiotherapy may be needed. The Court, agreeing with the Defendant’s assessment, awarded $2,000 for past treatment expenses.

The Plaintiff did not tender evidence establishing his claim for economic loss. The Court commented that the very limited nature of the evidence was such that it did not present a picture of how the Plaintiff spent his time prior to the incident or what, if any, earning capacity he had at that time.

The Court awarded no damages for domestic assistance.

Regarding contributory negligence, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. When the Plaintiff initially walked into the restaurant (and after he returned from the restrooms), he had the opportunity to observe the warning sign and the cleaner mopping the floor in front of him.

On both occasions, he was looking down at his mobile phone, or to the side.

The Court held that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and reduced his award of damages ($22,000) by 33%, to $14,740.

Takeaways

For occupiers and business owners, the decision emphasises the expectation to:

• Ensure warning signs very accurately identify the hazard – signs should clearly define the area being cleaned, rather than simply being present somewhere nearby
• Cater for inattention – retailers need to consider that their customers will have varying abilities and intelligence, and may not pay full attention to potential hazards within the premises
• Follow documented procedures in practice – having an appropriate written system is not enough if it is not properly implemented
• Preserve CCTV footage – clear footage can be critical in establishing what happened and assessing the mechanism of injury
• Consider contributory negligence – a claimant’s failure to take reasonable care for their own safety may reduce an award of damages, even where the occupier is found to have breached its duty of care