Facts Kathryn Strong was disabled due to an amputated right leg and requires her crutches. She suffered from a spinal injury when she fell at the Centro Taree Shopping Centre at approximately 12.30pm on the 24th of September, 2004. This occurred when she fell due to her crutches slipping on a chip that was on the floor in the sidewalk area of Woolworths. History Strong brought the case to the District Court of New South Wales to prove negligence against Woolworths and the owner of the Centro Taree Shopping Centre. This decision was then taken to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and the appeal was allowed. Strong then appealed to the High Court of Australia and succeeded in an action in tort of negligence against Woolworths. Strong formed …show more content…
Decision The decision was concluded and made final in the High Court of Australia by a majority of four to one that on the balance of probabilities, Strong would not have fallen if not for Woolworths’ negligence. The appeal was allowed. b) Identifying the Burden of Proof The plaintiff, Kathryn Strong, has to prove that all the elements such as causation are present as she is suing in negligence and therefore bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof must be the balance of probabilities. This means that Strong must prove that the actions of Woolworths have caused her the injury. This gives Woolworths the chance and opportunity to present evidence to debate against Strong’s case. c) Identifying the Defendant The defendant is Woolworths in this case as Strong is bringing the action against them. The defendant is the accused party of a wrong in a civil case and the decisions in tort cases will depend on whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. A defendant will be liable in negligence if they breach the duty they owe to the plaintiff. d) Area of Law: Tort