The jury did what!? Case note on Sakibul Haque v Alan Mance Motors Pty Ltd

In Sakibul Haque v Alan Mance Motors Pty Ltd [2025] VCC 1767 (Haque), Her Honour Judge Myers dismissed Alan Mance Motors Pty Ltd’s (the Defendant) application to set aside the jury’s verdict with respect to a finding of negligence.

Prior to the incident, Mr Haque (the Plaintiff) had been employed by the Defendant as a car salesman for five weeks. The Plaintiff had not previously worked as a car salesman. The Plaintiff was not provided with any formal training when commencing the role, other than shadowing another car salesman for one or two days to learn how to use the software.

On 10 May 2021, the Plaintiff was instructed to swap out the carpet mats and replace them with rubber mats in a car that was due for collection by a customer. The Plaintiff collected the replacement rubber mats, disposed of the plastic packaging, and removed the existing carpet mats from the car. Whilst doing so, the Plaintiff placed two of the carpet mats on the showroom floor next to the driver’s side door, one on top of the other. The Plaintiff exited the car to inform the Manager that one of the seats in the car was not bolted in properly. On his return, the Plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping and falling on the carpet mats he had himself left on the showroom floor.

The Plaintiff brought a claim for damages for the injuries he suffered due to the incident. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant had been negligent in failing to implement and/or enforce a safe and proper system of work and failing to properly train the Plaintiff.

The matter was heard by a jury who were to determine the following issues:

• Whether there was negligence on the part of the Defendant which was a cause of the Plaintiff’s injury, loss and damage.
• If there was a positive finding of negligence on the part of the Defendant, what is the assessment of a sum for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and future loss of earning capacity.
• Whether there was negligence on the part of the Plaintiff which was a cause of his injury, loss and damage.
• If there was a positive finding of negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, to what extent is it just and equitable that the Plaintiff’s damages be reduced.

The jury was to consider what a reasonable employer in the position of the Defendant should have done. Her Honour instructed the jury, amongst other points, that employers must also consider the possibility that employees might be negligent in performing their duties.

The jury found the Defendant’s negligence caused he Plaintiff’s injury, loss and damage. The jury also found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and reduced the Defendant’s responsibility as follows:

• Defendant’s responsibility as 95%.
• Plaintiff’s responsibility as 5%.

Following the jury’s verdict, the Defendant made an application to the Court for a judgment dismissing the jury’s verdict on the basis that it was obvious common sense that car mats on the floor were a hazard.

The question for Her Honour to decide then became whether there was evidence which could justify or sustain a verdict in the Plaintiff’s favour.

Her Honour ultimately dismissed the Defendant’s application. Her Honour noted that the Court should only disregard the jury’s verdict in the clearest of cases, which was was not the case here. There was sufficient evidence permitting the jury to find that a reasonable employer in the position of the Defendant would or should have a system of work in place and/or trained the Plaintiff.

Her Honour further noted that in applications such as this, a decision is made based on evidence most favourable to the party who carries the onus of proof. It was further noted that even if there was contradictory evidence, provided there was evidence that the jury could rely on to find in the Plaintiff’s favour, that was sufficient to sustain their finding.