A duty of care was owed by Aldi Supermarkets - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Questions: 1. Discuss about theA duty of care was owed by Aldi Supermarkets. 2. Discuss about theThe duty of care was breached by Aldi Supermarkets. Answers: Introduction Negligence is covered under the tort laws, which denotes the breach of duty of care, which a person had owed to another, due to undertaking such acts, which had the potential of injuring the other party (Harvey and Marston, 2009). The following parts analyse the case of Tamara in context of negligence and its different aspects. IRAC Analysis Issue 1 A duty of care was owed by Aldi Supermarkets. Rule 1 In order to make a claim of negligence, there is a need to clearly proof that a duty of care had been owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. For this purpose, reliance needs to be made to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL. In this case, the court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer. This was because there was proximity between the two, where the actions of one could affect the other (Strong and Williams, 2011). Also, there was direct causation in terms of Donoghue falling sick due to consumption of adulterated drink owing to the dead snail found in the bottle. Here, the risk of contamination was foreseeable in nature also, resulting in duty of care being upheld (Lunney and Oliphant, 2013). Application 1 The given case shows that Aldi Supermarket was in proximity to Tamara and their actions had the impact of hurting Tamara. A wet floor has the foreseeability of injury taking place and thus had to be kept clean to avoid any incidents. Applying the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Tamara was a consumer and care had to be taken towards her. Conclusion 1 Thus, a duty of care was owed by Aldi Supermarkets to Tamara. Issue 2 The duty of care was breached by Aldi Supermarkets. Rule 2 A standard of care has to be applied when the defendant performs the duty which they undertake. Where this standard of care is not applied, the duty of care is deemed to be breached. An example of this is Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367. In this case, the breach of duty of care was upheld when the council failed in providing the safety gear to their worker, which ultimately resulted in the worker being, blinded (Latimer, 2012). Application 2 In this case, Aldi Supermarkets failed in keeping the floor clean particularly when the floor was wet and a standard of care required to be adopted by the supermarket. This would be deemed as a breach of duty of care, particularly because Tamara fell down and got injured. Conclusion 2 Thus, the standard of care was not upheld, resulting in duty of care being breached. Issue 3 The injuries sustained by Tamara were not too remote. Rule 3 When a person is injured as a result of the undertaken negligence of the defendant, there is a need for the injury to be substantial. It is also important that the damage was foreseeable. In this context, the view of a prudent person has to be adopted as per Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40. This is in addition to the remoteness being an issue. The damages are not awarded where the chances of occurrence of the injury are too remote. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 is an example where the damages were not awarded as the damages were too remote. In order to establish if damages are to be paid to the plaintiff, but for test has to be applied based on Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. In this case, it has to be analysed if the injuries would have taken place had the duty of care not been breached (Turner, 2013). Application 3 In the given case study, it has already been shown that the duty of care was contravened by Aldi Supermarkets. It is also clear that Tamara got injured and broke her back, which required her to go to hospital resulting in damages of $700,000. The slippage on wet surface is reasonable based on view of prudent person as per Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt. Also, the damages here were not remote unlike the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd. Lastly, the injuries would not have been caused to Tamara, had the standard of care been taken by Aldi Supermarkets. Conclusion 3 Thus, the damages sustained by Tamara were not too remote. Issue 4 Aldi Supermarkets can use contributory negligence against Tamara. Rule 4 When a claim of contributory negligence is raised by the plaintiff, the defendants also raise counter allegations, and in this regard, the defence of contributory negligence is of assistance. Contributory negligence shows the contribution of the plaintiff in the injury caused to them. And for giving proper justice to the matter, where contributory negligence is established, the damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by the court, on the basis of their own discretion, which is ultimately based on the degree of contribution made by the plaintiff towards their injuries (Dongen, 2014). Hamilton v Duncan [2010] NSWDC 90 is of assistance in this matter. This case had the plaintiff having the knowledge of the hole being present, which was deemed as contributory negligence (Bannerman, 2015). A key case matching the case study is that of Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM KTP Nguyen Family Trust [2016] NSW 2016 888, where the plaintiff had slipped on wet tiles of the store and made a claim of negligence. In this, the speed of plaintiff was deemed as a contributory factor, resulting in damages being brought down by 10% (Devitt, 2016). Application 4 In this case, Tamara could be held liable for contributory negligence as she rushed towards the isle on seeing the other consumer. She knew that running would be risky on wet tiles, as per Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM KTP Nguyen Family Trust. As per Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM KTP Nguyen Family Trust, the speed would be deemed as factor in her injuries and the damages would be reduced accordingly. Conclusion 4 Thus, Aldi Supermarkets can use contributory negligence against Tamara. References Bannerman, D. (2015) Contributory Negligence In "Slip And Fall" Cases - No Control Over The Plaintiff's Own Action Or Inaction?. [Online] Bannermans Lawyers. Available from: https://www.bannermans.com.au/insurance/articles/public-liability/331-contributory-negligence-in-slip-and-fall-cases-no-control-over-the-plaintiff-s-own-action-or-inaction [Accessed on: 10/01/18] Devitt, S. (2016) A slip up - shopping centre liable for slip and fall on wet tiles. [Online] Lexology. Available from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bdcef724-3c2e-482d-9d74-540bc1a44d6c [Accessed on: 10/01/18] Dongen, E.V. (2014) Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston: Brill Nijhoff. Harvey, B., and Marston, J. (2009) Cases and Commentary on Tort. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. Lunney, M., and Oliphant, K. (2013) Tort Law: Text and Materials. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strong, S.I., and Williams, L. (2011) Complete Tort Law: Text, Cases, Materials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, C. (2013) Unlocking Torts. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.