Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133: Exaggerated Injury Claim by Plaintiff Results in Reduced Compensation Payment

In the case of Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133 (19 May 2017), Woolworths has avoided paying more than $140,000 in damages after surveillance footage of a customer who slipped on a grape in February 2014 revealed his claims about an injury caused by the accident were “inconsistent”.

Background to the Case

Due to a previous accident when the plaintiff (a 51-year-old disability pensioner) was younger, and now requires him to use a prosthetic limb, the court heard that when visiting the Woolworths Hervey Bay (Qld) store, he slipped on the grape and the limb moved out from under him causing him to fall on his leg stump and sustaining an injury. The plaintiff then claimed as a result of the accident, he was unable to perform his usual activities, including walking on the beach; showering and drying himself, housework, grocery shopping, preparing meals or mowing the lawns. He claimed he was almost wholly dependent on his partner to do those things for him.

The Compensation Claim

The plaintiff claimed the accident left him unable to function independently and affected his mobility and level of function for a year after the accident. The plaintiff sought a total of $40,390 in damages for past gratuitous care and $103,512 for future gratuitous care.

While Woolworths did not dispute its liability in the case, it took issue with the plaintiff’s claim that the incident caused significant permanent incapacity. Surveillance footage captured by a private investigator on behalf of Woolworths in March and October 2016 and presented to the court, also revealed the claims made by the customer around his mobility and level of functioning were “inconsistent”. It showed him walking, standing and driving for extended periods of time, which contradicted evidence he gave in court.

The Judgment

In handing down his judgment, Searles J said the footage “speaks for itself”, despite the plaintiff criticising the footage and claiming it did not accurately depict the their experience. His Honour said at [para 36]:

His Honour awarded the plaintiff a combined $11,111 for the injury, including $4080 in general damages, a further $4687 for the arthroscopy of his knee and nearly $2300 for travel, Medicare, pharmacy and lawn mowing costs in the immediate wake of the incident and found no basis for awarding damages for ongoing care.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.

Grape expectations: Woolworths avoids paying $140,000 in damages after surveillance footage finds customer’s injury claims were exaggerated - smartcompany.com.au

Queensland man who slipped on a grape in a Woolworths store awarded $11,000 - news.com.au

Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133 (19 May 2017)