Slipped in a shopping centre or supermarket in Queensland? What has to be shown

A spilt drink in a food court, grapes on a supermarket floor, water tracked in from the car park on a wet afternoon: shopping centre slip and fall claims are familiar in Queensland, and often contested, because the fall takes a second and the questions that decide liability are about everything that happened before it.

The law does not make a shopping centre or supermarket liable simply because someone fell on its floor. The question is whether the people responsible for the floor took reasonable care, and whether a failure to take that care caused the fall. This article explains how Queensland law approaches that question, why inspection and cleaning systems matter, why CCTV and incident reports need attention early, and how the injured person’s own care and the time limits fit in.

The legal starting point: reasonable care, not perfection

A shopping centre owner, supermarket operator or cleaning contractor that controls a floor open to the public will ordinarily owe shoppers a duty to take reasonable care for their safety. Whether that duty was breached is decided under s 9 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Under s 9(1), a person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of harm unless the risk was foreseeable, the risk was not insignificant, and a reasonable person in that position would have taken the precautions. Under s 9(2), the court weighs the probability of harm if care were not taken, the likely seriousness of the harm, the burden of taking precautions, and the social utility of the activity that creates the risk.

Spills are foreseeable where food and drink are sold, and the usual precautions (regular inspection, prompt cleaning, signs, suitable mats near entrances) are not usually a heavy burden. But the standard is reasonable care. A floor does not have to be spotless every second of the day.

What has to be shown, at a glance

Inspection and cleaning systems

Most of these claims are decided by evidence about the system the operator had for finding and removing hazards, and whether it was followed on the day. Large retailers and centre managers commonly run scheduled floor inspections, with staff or contract cleaners walking set routes and recording each sweep.

The practical issues are whether there was a system at all, whether it suited the area (a food court, a produce section or a rainy-day entrance carries more risk than a homewares aisle, so the s 9(2) factors may call for more frequent checks), and whether inspection logs and cleaning records show the scheduled sweeps actually happened before the fall.

Responsibility can also be divided. The centre owner or manager may control the common areas, the supermarket its own floor, and a contractor the cleaning. Under s 9(7) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), a person who receives part 1 of a notice of claim must, within the period set by regulation or, if none is prescribed, 1 month, give a copy to each other person it knows of who may be a respondent, and tell the claimant. That helps, but identifying the likely respondents early still matters.

Obvious risks and wet-floor signs

Under s 13(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), an obvious risk is one that would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the injured person’s position. Under s 13(2) and (4), it includes risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge, and a risk can be obvious even if it is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable. Under s 15(1), subject to limited exceptions in s 15(2), there is no duty to warn of an obvious risk.

So a wet-floor sign, or its absence, is not always decisive. A large puddle in a well-lit walkway may be treated differently from clear liquid on glossy tiles, or a single grape in an aisle where shoppers are looking at the shelves. Under s 13(5), a risk created by a failure to properly maintain or care for a thing, such as a worn or lifting entrance mat, is not an obvious risk unless the failure itself is obvious.

Proving the failure caused the fall

A poor cleaning system is not enough on its own. Under s 11(1), causation requires that the breach was a necessary condition of the harm and that it is appropriate for liability to extend to it. Under s 12, the injured person always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to causation.

This usually comes down to timing. If a spill happened seconds before the fall, even a good system might not have found it, and the lack of a better one may have made no difference. If the hazard had been there long enough for a reasonable inspection to pick it up, the link is far easier to establish. Evidence of how long the hazard was on the floor is often the most important single piece of evidence.

CCTV, incident reports and the early record

That timing evidence is usually held by the operator. Centres and supermarkets commonly have CCTV over walkways and aisles, and staff usually complete an incident report after a fall. Recording systems are commonly set to overwrite footage after a period that varies between sites, so footage not identified and preserved early can be lost.

Once a claim is under way, s 27(1) and (2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) require a respondent to give the claimant copies of directly relevant reports and documentary material about the incident, within the period set by regulation or, if none is prescribed, 1 month after a complying part 1 notice of claim, and on request information about the circumstances of the incident. Under s 27(4), a respondent that fails without proper reason is liable for the claimant’s costs resulting from the failure. Those obligations only help if the material still exists.

A practical evidence checklist after a fall:

• Report the fall to staff or centre management before leaving, and ask that an incident report be made.
• Note the exact location and time, and photograph the hazard, the area and any signage if it is safe to do so.
• Ask in writing that CCTV of the area be kept, naming the date, time and location.
• Record the names and contact details of witnesses and staff spoken to.
• Keep the footwear worn at the time, and any receipts showing when the person was there.
• See a doctor promptly and keep a record of treatment and symptoms.

The injured person’s own care

Under s 23 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), contributory negligence is decided on the same principles as breach, by the standard of a reasonable person in the injured person’s position and on what they knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time. Shoppers are expected to take reasonable care, but retail spaces are designed to draw the eye to shelves rather than the floor. Footwear, phone use, hurrying and whether the hazard could reasonably have been seen are all weighed. A finding reduces damages, and under s 24 a court may reduce them by 100% if just and equitable, which defeats the claim.

Time limits

Under s 9(1) and (1A) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), a written notice of claim in the approved form, in two parts, must be given before court proceedings start. Under s 9(3), part 1 is due by the earlier of 9 months after the incident (or, if symptoms were not immediately apparent, 9 months after they first appeared) and 1 month after first instructing a law practice once the respondent is identified. Under s 9(5), a late notice must still be given, with a reasonable excuse for the delay.

Separately, under s 11(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), proceedings must be brought within 3 years from the date the cause of action arose. Section 31(2) allows a court to extend it only in limited circumstances: broadly, where a material fact of a decisive character was not within the person’s means of knowledge until late in the period, and there is evidence to establish the right of action.

Staff injured while working in a centre are in a different position. Under s 5(1)(b) and (2) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), that Act does not apply to an injury for which compensation is payable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), with limited exceptions, whether or not compensation is claimed. Those claims follow their own rules.

Published 4 November 2026.

Where this leaves someone injured in a shopping centre or supermarket

A fall on a retail floor does not by itself establish liability. What usually decides the matter is the inspection and cleaning system, how long the hazard was there, whether it was obvious, and what the injured person could reasonably have seen, all against a notice deadline that can arrive well before the 3-year limitation period. More information is on our pages about public liability claims and injuries in public places, and the current text of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) on the Queensland legislation website.

Related reading

• Injured in a public place in Queensland: who owes a duty of care
• Personal injury law in Queensland: categories and time limits
• Personal injury time limits in Queensland and when they can be extended
• How Fraser Lawyers helps with public liability claims
• Contact Fraser Lawyers

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Queensland law and the figures referred to can change, and every situation turns on its own facts. Contact Fraser Lawyers for advice specific to your circumstances.

If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.