The Deli Aisle Spill, CRPS and the Texting Customer
Mdm Tan, a 52-year-old piano teacher, enters FreshMart at 12:05 pm. CCTV shows a customer drop a bottle of cooking oil near the deli at 12:05. Two employees walk past the aisle at 12:08 and 12:11 but do not stop. The last documented floor check was 11:50; store policy requires checks every 30 minutes and immediate cleanup of spills. No warning cone or mat is placed. At 12:17 Mdm Tan slips, fracturing her right wrist. She was texting on her phone and did not see the oil. She develops complex regional pain syndrome, needs surgery, and cannot teach for six months. Her monthly income is RM 8,000; medical expenses are RM 22,000. She had a previous wrist fracture five years earlier that had healed. FreshMart says the spill was caused by an unknown customer, its staff were busy, and the injury is too remote. Advise Mdm Tan on negligence, causation, contributory negligence and damages.
1. Has FreshMart breached its duty of care as occupier? Address the cleaning system, the two employees who passed, and the unknown customer's role.
Read the worked answer
Duty. FreshMart, as occupier, owes a duty of reasonable care to customers to keep the premises reasonably safe. The duty is not to eliminate all spills but to implement a reasonable system of inspection, cleaning and warning.
Breach. The store had a written 30-minute check policy, but the last check was 11:50 and the spill occurred at 12:05. Two employees walked past at 12:08 and 12:11 and did nothing. No cone or mat was placed. A 12-minute spill in a busy deli aisle is foreseeable. The store's system failed in operation even if the policy was adequate on paper. 'Staff were busy' is not a defence; staffing levels are within the occupier's control. The unknown customer's act does not break the duty; it is the very risk the occupier must manage. Breach is strongly arguable.
2. How should the court analyse factual and legal causation, the CRPS, the prior wrist injury and Mdm Tan's contributory negligence?
Read the worked answer
Causation in fact. But for the oil, Mdm Tan would not have slipped. The CCTV timing supports this.
Causation in law. A wrist fracture from a slip is foreseeable. CRPS is an unusual consequence, but the eggshell-skull principle means the tortfeasor takes the victim as found. If CRPS is a recognised consequence of wrist injury, it is not too remote merely because it is rare. The prior fracture may make her more susceptible; that does not break causation, though it may affect the extent of loss attributable to the defendant.
Contributory negligence. She was texting and did not see the oil. A customer must take reasonable care for her own safety, but the store created the hazard and failed to warn. Her share is likely modest, perhaps 20–30%, not a complete defence. The court should compare culpability and causal potency: the store's failure to clean or warn is the dominant cause; her inattention is secondary.
Remoteness. The store may argue CRPS was unforeseeable. The better view is that the type of damage (personal injury) was foreseeable; the precise extent need not be. If the evidence shows CRPS is not a recognised consequence at all, remoteness could reduce the claim, but that is a medical question.
3. What damages should Mdm Tan claim, and what deductions or risks should be considered?
Read the worked answer
Special damages. Medical expenses of RM 22,000, proven by receipts; lost income of RM 8,000 × 6 = RM 48,000, subject to mitigation and proof (e.g. tax returns, substitute teaching). If she could not teach at all, the full loss is claimable; if she could do limited work, deduct actual earnings.
General damages. Pain, suffering and loss of amenity for a wrist fracture with surgery and CRPS. The award depends on medical evidence and comparable awards; CRPS may justify a substantial sum. Future loss: if the CRPS causes permanent restriction, claim future earnings capacity, but it must be evidenced, not speculative. Future medical and care costs may also be claimed.
Deductions and risks. Any sick pay, insurance or statutory benefits may be deductible depending on the jurisdiction. Contributory negligence reduces the total by the assessed percentage. The store's liability is several, not joint, unless others are joined.
Advice. Plead both occupier's liability and negligence; obtain CCTV, cleaning records and staff rosters; call a hand surgeon and a psychiatrist if CRPS affects mood; prepare a schedule of loss. A realistic settlement range should reflect a 20–30% reduction and the risk that CRPS is attributed partly to the prior injury.