A Canberra man who sought more than $2 million after slipping beside a wet-floor sign at McDonald\u2019s has walked away with less than $15,000.<\/p>\n
Mohammad Almazaydeh was at the restaurant in February 2021 to collect a certificate for a waterproofing business when he slipped, resulting in injuries he claimed worsened over time.<\/p>\n
The incident was captured on CCTV, which became key evidence in the ACT Supreme Court case.<\/p>\n
The footage depicted Mr Almazaydeh slipping \u2013 but not falling, as he grabbed the warning sign to steady himself before clutching his hip.<\/p>\n
Justice David Mossop found anyone \u201cpaying reasonable attention\u201d would have seen the McDonald\u2019s worker mopping ahead, but the warning sign had been moved to the side and the wet floor extended about 50cm beyond it.<\/p>\n
Footage showed Mr Almazaydeh grab the sign after slipping on his return from the toilets, before walking away limping and clutching his hip.<\/p>\n
The man said his injuries caused him to wake up up to 30 times a night and to take painkillers including Endone and Tramadol.<\/p>\n
Mr Almazaydeh initially sought $1.8 million in lost earnings and another $650,000 in other damages, later reducing his economic loss claim to $1.5 million.<\/p>\n
But Justice Mossop rejected the claimed link between the accident and Mr Almazaydeh\u2019s more serious conditions.<\/p>\n
\u201cRather, I accept the opinion of Dr Machart that, at most, he suffered a soft tissue injury which may have been symptomatic for a number of weeks,\u201d Justice Mossop said.<\/p>\n
The judge found he had not established the accident caused his hip bursitis or shoulder tendon tear.<\/p>\n
However, McDonald\u2019s franchisee Gajjh United Pty Ltd was found to have breached its duty of care.<\/p>\n
McDonald\u2019s training material required wet-floor signs to be clearly visible and workers to mop three-metre-by-three-metre sections before using a dry mop.<\/p>\n
Justice Mossop found a larger area had been mopped and the warning sign\u2019s positioning failed to make clear where the wet-floor hazard began.<\/p>\n
\u201cI consider that the defendant did not take all care that was reasonable in the circumstances,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The judge described the cleaning operation as creating an \u201cobvious slipping hazard\u201d.<\/p>\n
But he also found Mr Almazaydeh failed to take reasonable care for his own safety, with CCTV showing him looking down at his wallet, which contained his phone, or to the side as he approached the area.<\/p>\n
His damages were reduced by 33 per cent for contributory negligence.<\/p>\n
Mr Almazaydeh was awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,000 for past treatment, but nothing for economic loss, future treatment or domestic assistance.<\/p>\n
After $7,260 was deducted for his share of responsibility, he was awarded $14,740.<\/p>\n
The case will return to court on September 16 for arguments over costs.<\/p>\n
News24.com.au has reached out to McDonald\u2019s Australia.<\/p>\n