Man who slipped in McDonald's sought more than $2 million in damages

A man who slipped near a wet floor sign at a Canberra McDonald's has been awarded nearly $15,000 in compensation, after initially seeking more than $2 million.According to a judgment handed down by the ACT Supreme Court, the man visited the fast food restaurant in Mitchell in February 2021, where he passed the wet floor sign and slipped, but did not fall. The judgment said he "steadied himself on the warning sign and immediately clutched his hip".The man then claimed that the slip had caused him to suffer a variety of injuries that led him to seek $2,150,000 in damages.The defendant in the case, a franchisee who operated the restaurant, argued it was obvious cleaning was underway in the area, as shown by the presence of a large red bucket, an employee wearing a red uniform, and four yellow warning signs.But the presiding judge, David Mossop, found one of those signs had been moved prior to the man's slip, and was not prominent at the time.As a result, he found both parties were partially responsible for the man's accident.CCTV shows man limping after slipIn CCTV footage of the incident, the judgment said the man could be seen walking near the sign as his left leg begins to slide towards his right foot before he "places his body weight on the sign".The judgment said he could be seen in the footage trying to regain his balance with his foot sliding again.A nearby staff member, who had been mopping in the area, "can be seen looking at the plaintiff with her hands in front of her in an expression of shock or concern".The man could then be seen limping, with his left hand on his left hip, the judgment said.The case was heard in the ACT Supreme Court in June. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)In his findings, the judge said that while there had been a centrally placed warning sign in the area where the worker was mopping, by the time the plaintiff arrived and then walked across the room to go to the toilet, it had been moved "to the side so that it was less prominent"."The defendant is correct to submit that anybody paying reasonable attention would have observed the McDonald's worker doing the mopping in the area in front of the service counter," the judge wrote."However, as described earlier, the area affected by mopping extended beyond the relevant warning sign in the direction from which the plaintiff approached by approximately 50cm. "It would not necessarily have been obvious that this was the case, rather than the mopped area being within the outer boundary defined by the warning sign."Injuries affecting sleep, court hearsJustice Mossop concluded that the defendant had not taken "all care that was reasonable" in the circumstances to ensure that anyone on the premises did not suffer injury or damage as a result of the cleaning operations.He said that for these reasons, the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.However, he said he did not accept that all of the man's subsequent health issues listed were the direct result of the slip.The court judgment said there were wet floor signs out at the time of the man's accident. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)According to an overview of the plaintiff's case in the judgment, the man experienced damage to his right shoulder and his "hip on both sides"."The plaintiff's evidence was that his injuries were getting more severe over time, that he would wake 30 times a night and needed to take medication in order to assist him to sleep," the judgment said."The medication that he was taking included Panadeine Forte, Ibuprofen, Endone and Tramadol."In 2024, the man was referred to a hospital for an operation on his right shoulder and was told that even with the operation, the movement in his right arm would be limited."He was told he would not be able to carry more than 15 or 20 kg and that his condition would be permanent," the judgment said."The plaintiff said that he had consented to the operation on two different occasions and that he was on a waiting list to have the operation carried out in the public system."The man was described in court as having been "fit, strong, helpful and happy" prior to the slip.The judgment said the man indicated at the start of the case that he was claiming $1.8 million in lost earnings and $650,000 for pain and suffering, as well as domestic services or domestic assistance."He gave evidence that the injuries he suffered affect his capacity to do domestic work, including looking after his disabled wife and his children," it said.Injured man was 'contributorily negligent'The judge said he accepted the opinion of a doctor who gave evidence for the defence, who said that at most, the man "suffered a soft tissue injury which may have been symptomatic for a number of weeks"."Specifically, I conclude that the plaintiff has not established that the accident was a necessary condition for his trochanteric bursitis or the supraspinatus tendon tear in his shoulder," Justice Mossop said.The judge concluded that the man had "failed to take reasonable care for his own safety"."When the plaintiff initially walked into the restaurant, he had the opportunity to observe the warning sign and the cleaner mopping the floor in front of him. "The position was the same when he returned from the toilet. On both occasions, he was looking down at his wallet (which also contained his mobile phone) or to the side. "A person taking reasonable care for their own safety would have recognised the commonly used warning signs and, having been alerted to that presence, would have paid attention to the source of the hazard in its vicinity. "In my view, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and his award of damages should be reduced on that account by 33 per cent."The man was awarded $20,000 in damages, with $7,260 deducted to account for his own liability of 33 per cent.The parties will meet again later in September for argument in relation to costs.