Slip and Fall Public Liability Claims: WHS Expert Perspective
Slip and fall claims in public liability matters turn on whether the occupier took reasonable precautions against foreseeable slip and trip risks. This guide explains the WHS expert analysis applied, covering floor surfaces, cleaning regimes, lighting, signage and prior incident evidence.
The Slip and Fall Liability Framework
Slip and fall public liability claims arise where a person is injured on premises occupied or managed by a defendant, due to a foreseeable slip or trip hazard that was not adequately managed. The legal framework draws on the occupier's duty of care in negligence and, where the injured person is a worker, the PCBU's duty under the WHS Act. In negligence, the question is whether the occupier took the precautions a reasonable person would have taken, as set out in the civil liability legislation (for example section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)). Under the WHS Act, a PCBU must eliminate or minimise risks so far as is reasonably practicable. See public liability expert witness for how Karim approaches these claims.
The WHS expert analysis in slip and fall matters addresses the physical conditions at the incident location, the duty holder's risk management system for slip and trip hazards, the adequacy of the controls that were in place, and whether better controls were available and reasonably practicable. See the slips and trips expert witness page for the full scope of analysis.
Floor Surface and Coefficient of Friction
The slip resistance of a floor surface is measured by its coefficient of friction (COF). Australian Standard AS 4586 classifies floor surfaces by their wet and dry slip resistance. Surfaces used in areas where they may become wet must meet minimum slip resistance ratings appropriate for that environment. Where a surface is rated inadequate for its use, this is a relevant finding in the expert analysis.
Floor surface adequacy is assessed at the time of the incident, not at the time of installation. A floor surface that was initially adequate may become inadequate through wear, contamination or damage. Regular inspection and maintenance of floor surfaces are part of the reasonable precautions expected of an occupier managing slip risk. Where the surface had deteriorated and the deterioration was not identified and addressed, this failure is relevant to breach.
Where the slip resistance of the floor at the incident location is disputed, a pendulum COF test conducted in conditions replicating the incident circumstances can provide objective evidence. Where testing is no longer possible because the surface has been replaced, AS 4586 ratings for the same surface type in comparable conditions provide a benchmark. Expert analysis addresses what the evidence suggests about slip resistance at the relevant time.
Cleaning Regime Adequacy
In retail, food service and hospitality environments, liquid spills are the most common cause of slip incidents. The duty holder's cleaning regime must be adequate to identify and address spills within a timeframe that reduces the slip risk to an acceptable level. What is adequate depends on the volume of foot traffic, the nature of the products handled, the history of spills in the area and the layout of the premises.
Expert analysis assesses whether the cleaning schedule and spill response protocol were appropriate for the risk level, whether cleaning staff were adequately trained and supervised, whether records were kept of cleaning activities and whether known spill-prone areas received additional attention. A cleaning roster that looks adequate on paper but was not followed in practice does not satisfy the duty.
Signage, Warnings and Prior Incidents
Wet floor signs and hazard warnings are administrative controls, not elimination or engineering controls. They reduce the risk by warning people of a hazard but do not remove the hazard itself. Where a spill could have been cleaned up within a reasonable time and was not, a wet floor sign does not discharge the duty. The sign is evidence that the hazard was known; the failure to clean it up is the breach.
Prior incidents at the same location are highly relevant to foreseeability and to the adequacy of the response. Where the duty holder knew that spills regularly occurred in an area, or that the floor surface was slippery when wet, and had not taken adequate steps to manage that risk, prior incident records establish both foreseeability and failure to act. Incident logs, maintenance records and staff complaint records are all relevant documents. For site inspection services in slip and fall matters, see site inspections.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
What level of cleaning is reasonable in a retail environment?
It depends on the nature of the business and the history of spills. In a supermarket with regular liquid spills, hourly cleaning checks in high-risk areas such as produce and refrigerated sections may be required. In a dry goods store with few spill incidents, less frequent scheduled cleaning combined with a rapid spill response protocol may be adequate. The standard is calibrated to the risk, not a fixed interval. Expert analysis assesses the adequacy of the specific regime against the actual risk at that location.
-
Are wet floor signs always sufficient to discharge the duty?
No. Wet floor signs are administrative controls, not a substitute for addressing the underlying hazard. Where a spill could have been cleaned promptly and was not, placing a sign around it reduces but does not eliminate the risk, and does not discharge the duty to manage the hazard. Courts have consistently found that a wet floor sign does not protect an occupier who had the opportunity to clean a spill but chose not to.
-
How is COF measured at an incident scene?
Coefficient of friction is measured using a pendulum test device applied to the floor surface in conditions replicating those at the time of the incident, including wet or dry conditions and the type of contamination. Where the original surface is no longer available for testing, AS 4586 slip resistance ratings for the same product in comparable conditions provide a benchmark, supplemented by evidence about the condition of the surface at the time of the incident.