Kmart Loses Appeal Over $625,000 Injury Compensation
Retail giant Kmart has been ordered to pay nearly $625,000 in compensation to Rita Marmara, a grandmother who sustained spine and shoulder injuries after a heavy box fell on her at a self-serve checkout in Woy Woy, New South Wales.
The incident occurred when Ms. Marmara was shopping with her family, and a mountain bike box toppled from another customer’s trolley behind her. The box had been propped up in a standard trolley, leaning against a smaller bike box, but it eventually fell, striking Ms. Marmara.
Ms. Marmara pursued legal action against Kmart, arguing that the store had failed to uphold its duty of care by not implementing measures to prevent such incidents. She suggested that the retailer could have managed oversized items better, such as by requiring bulky purchases to be collected from a designated loading area or offering flatbed trolleys to prevent customers from balancing large items in standard carts.
In her ruling, NSW District Court Judge Judith Gibson recognized the significant potential for harm, noting, “The likely seriousness of the harm was high. The weight and dimensions of the boxes were considerable. Ms. Marmara was hit only by the larger box, but the force of the impact was substantial.” The judge added that Ms. Marmara had been holding a small child’s hand at the time, who could also have been struck.
Ms. Marmara initially won her case in the District Court in March, but Kmart appealed, arguing that the court had improperly admitted evidence from an occupational health and safety specialist. Kmart claimed this expertise was irrelevant to the case. However, NSW Appeal Court Judge Richard McHugh upheld the original decision, affirming that the expert’s knowledge was valid and “sufficiently shown to be based on specialized knowledge.”
Kmart also argued that it had a system in place to help customers with heavy or bulky items. The store cited testimony from an employee describing a procedure where customers could request assistance to have such items brought to a loading dock and loaded into their vehicle. However, Judge McHugh dismissed this argument, noting that the service was only available to customers who actively requested it and that there was no signage to advertise this option. “The word ‘system’ does not accurately describe the circumstances in which that service was provided,” he stated.
Ultimately, Kmart’s appeal was rejected, solidifying Ms. Marmara’s compensation award. For more legal news and updates on consumer rights, visit news.kelasteknisi.com.
Read: ACCC Emphasizes Importance of “Actual” Past Premium in Renewal Notices.
