A shopper who slipped on a stray piece of mango has lost her bid for compensation from Woolworths, despite a finding that the supermarket chain failed in its duty of care. 

Martha Gomez’s lawsuit was rejected by the NSW District Court because it failed to properly establish causation. 

Now the state’s Appeal Court has confirmed the decision. 

Ms Gomez slipped on the fruit near the front entrance to the MetCentre Woolworths in Sydney about 5.11pm on May 31 2021. It was later shown that the fruit had been dropped on the floor by another customer about 5.02pm – and these timings would prove to be central to the initial court’s ruling. 

Woolworths told the court it operated a “service zero” system of hourly floor inspections and a “clean as you go” program, which required all employees to tidy up as they worked in an area. It said all staff were told to keep a constant lookout for floor spillages.  

However, it conceded the 5pm “service zero” inspection had not been carried out before Ms Gomez fell. 

The District Court said Woolworths’ failure to conduct the 5pm inspection was a breach of its duty of care, as was its failure to ensure the “service zero” system included staff inspecting the front of store. But it found a 5pm inspection could not have prevented Ms Gomez’s injuries, given the fruit was dropped just after that time. Therefore, “causation was not made out”. 

It found there was no requirement for constant or more frequent inspection of the front of store, because it “was not an area such as a food court or an area where liquids or produce, including grapes and other pieces of fruit, was stored or available for inspection”; hourly inspection was sufficient; and a “system ... which would have resulted in inspection and cleaning between 5.02pm and 5.11pm ... was not a reasonable precaution for Woolworths to take”. 

On appeal, Ms Gomez argued the District Court judge should have found Woolworths at fault for additional breaches, including that two staff members should have seen the spillage as part of their “clean as you go” duties. She said this, on top of the established breaches, would establish causation. 

But the Appeal Court says one of the staff members had already finished their shift, and the other worked in a separate area of the store, and had no responsibility for the entrance. 

It has rejected Ms Gomez’s appeal and ordered her to pay Woolworths’ costs. 

See the ruling here.