Part 2: Occupiers Liability In Australia

Part 2
Occupiers' liability in Australia
The defendant in this case , Xerox Supermarket , has an very important role which is identified by the Australia law as an occupier. Hence , I will try to refer to the occupiers' liability law and relative regulation ,especially from the passed legislation of Western Australia , South Australia and Victoria . Actually , the occupiers' liability law still obeys the general principles of negligence like standard of care and proper criterion . However , it can provide the judger a more practical and accurate view on the possible liability of the supermarket as a typical premise of retailers .
1.Defination of premises of retailers
In Australia law, 'premises' is defined as a kind of structures whether they are movable or not and include land , building , any vehicle , vessel and aircraft. Then the premises

Kelly slipped on a woodchip dropped by other customers and got injured . However , the court considered the supermarket still fallen below the required standard of care . And the plaintiff won the case .Because they did not have the adequate cleaning system in their management for that area. On the opposite, for Griffin v Coles Myer Ltd in 1991 ,the plaintiff lost the case as an end . She slipped on the sugar which had the same color as the floor . But the judge found the cleaning system of the supermarket was adequate enough. By that, it means he thought the occupier had reached the required standard of care.
Daily v Spot-On [1995]
Finally, standard of duty of care should be reasonable. Daily , a seventy-nine year old woman , lost action and fell over the display rocks , then she was injured heavily. She lost because the judger thought the display of rocks was expected to be in the supermarket . In our cases ,the water on the floor is not considered as what the customers expect to see in the supermarket.