The automatic doors allegedly trapped a customer, resulting in injuries
The ACT Supreme Court has ordered the manufacturer of Woolworths' automatic sliding doors to be added as a defendant in a personal injury case against the supermarket giant.
In Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd [2023] ACTSC 214, Shiel Mehta sued Woolworths for negligence. Mehta alleged that in 2021, when attempting to exit a Woolworths store, the automatic sliding doors closed on him, striking his head and trapping his arms below his shoulders. Later that day, due to dizziness and his injuries, Mehta fell to the ground and suffered further injuries.
Woolworths denied Mehta's claim of a breach of duty of care, arguing that it retained Assa Abloy to service and maintain the sliding doors at the entrance of the premises. Woolworths provided Mehta's solicitors with documents relating to the door manufacturing and maintenance company known as Assa Abloy.
Mehta sought leave to file an amended originating claim and an amended statement of claim to add Assa Abloy as a second defendant to the ongoing case. The proposed second defendant is being introduced to the proceedings based on the defence's assertion that Woolworths has delegated a portion of its responsibility concerning the automatic doors to Assa Abloy.
The ACT Supreme Court noted that an occupier may defeat a claim of negligence by an entrant by asserting that it has engaged someone else to take steps to keep the property safe either generally or in a particular respect. In that sense, an occupier's duty is a delegable one.
Citing case law, the court said, "There is no doubt also that this occupier's duty of care is 'delegable', in the sense that it may be discharged in whole or in part by the occupier's exercise of reasonable skill and care in engaging someone else to take steps to keep the property safe either generally or in particular respects."
The court pointed out that the difficulty with the defendant's pleading was that it did not identify any legal entity to which any responsibility was delegated. "Assa Abloy" may identify a trading name, but it is not a legal entity. The court further said that the defence did not identify how the entity was "retained," nor did it provide particulars of any contract by which it was retained to allow the pleading to be understood. It did not identify the duties of the entity according to the contract. It did not identify the contractor's qualifications or competencies, which would make Woolworths' reliance upon them reasonable. It did not plead any circumstances relating to the selection or suitability of the entity that would make its conduct reasonable.
Moreover, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff's solicitors sought rectification of the difficulties with the pleading of the defence. There was no evidence that the plaintiff's solicitors addressed the potential for Woolworths to escape liability because of the delegation of responsibility for the doors to another entity.
The court said the proposed pleading did not disclose material facts that would connect the entity proposed to be joined as a second defendant to the circumstances of the cases. It merely added references to the second defendant where there were references to Woolworths. However, these defects were fixed by the time of the oral hearing by filing amended versions of the proposed originating claim and statement of claim.
Accordingly, the court approved the addition of Assa Abloy as the second defendant to the case. This decision was based on the apparent relevance of the entity's involvement in maintaining the sliding doors and the potential for overlapping claims and inconsistent outcomes if the proceedings were kept separate. The court said there was a live issue about whether the sliding doors functioned correctly and were maintained appropriately.
It also appeared to the court that Woolworths had taken steps to contract responsibility for the maintenance doors. The court said there is a basis for joining Assa Abloy based on the terms of the contract and the factual circumstances relating to any defect in the doors. Accordingly, the court ordered that Assa Abloy be joined as the second defendant in the proceedings.
