9
Injury Liability Gazette
Mr Dillon gave evidence that the mat was synthetic and
had a rubber backing. When questioned, he admitted
he had never closely inspected the mat and he was
aware that rubber would become hard in extreme
temperatures and lose its elastic properties.
The trial judge found that the owner, not the tenant,
was the occupier of the premises at the time of the
incident. His Honour accepted the plaintiff’s argument
that the mat was very worn as a result of being
exposed to weather conditions for at least four years
and had lost its slip-resistant properties over time. His
Honour held the risk of slipping on a worn mat on a
polished floor was foreseeable and not insignificant.
His Honour stated a reasonable person in the owners’
position ought to have taken precautions against the
harm, including inspecting the underside of the mat
and placing non-slip material beneath the mat if the
mat was to be left inside. In failing to do so, it was
found that the owners had breached their duty to the
tenant.
The trial judge concluded that the owners were solely
liable for the incident.
Issues on appeal
The owners appealed to the Court of Appeal. They
argued that the trial judge had erred in finding that
the mat was unreasonably slippery as there was no
evidence that, even if the mat was worn, or if its rubber
backing had hardened over time and had become less
elastic, that it would be less slip-resistant than a new
mat.
They also argued the trial judge did not give sufficient
weight to Ms Munro’s evidence that she never found
the internal floor to be slippery or the mat to be
dangerous.
Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal stated the owners’ submissions
regarding the slip-resistance of a worn mat ‘
defied
common sense and experience
’. The court held that
the primary judge had given adequate consideration to
the evidence of both the owners and the tenant, and
that their verbal evidence regarding the texture of the
mat and Mr Dillon’s concession that rubber exposed to
high temperatures becomes hard and loses its elastic
properties, ‘
was capable of justifying a finding that a
reasonable person in Mr Dillon’s position would have
inspected the condition of the mat, which would have
revealed… that it had substantially lost its slip-resistant
properties
’.
As a result, the trial judge’s findings were upheld and
the appeal failed.
