Issue
Tamara, the victim of the case slipped on the floor of the supermarket cause of melted ice cream. Now she wants to sue the supermarket for the negligence done and wants to claim for damages in relation to the loss occurred to her. Now the issue is to check that whether Tamara will succeed in her claim or not.
Tort is a civil wrong (The Lawyers & Jurists, 2018). Negligence is another aspect of tort. Under Tort Law, negligence is a situation where one person breaches his/her duty of care (Miller and Jentz, 2009). Now, this is to understand that what is a duty of care. In answer to the inquiry, this is to be stated that under Tort law some relationships are defined where a person owes a duty of care in respect to other, In such a scenario it becomes the responsibility of such person to act similar to a reasonable person in respect to another person. Whenever a person fails to behave like a reasonable person it is treated as a breach of the duty of care (E-Law Resources, 2018). Under Tort Law, some relationship is defined where a person owes a duty of care, for example, relationship doctor-patient, solicitor-client, parents child and so on.
Apart from these defined relationships, the court will decide that whether a duty of care exist between two people or not. In this area, the principle is given in the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is an important one to review. In this case, the Caparo test has given, according to which to determine a duty of car there must be certain factors in a case. According to the Caparo test, to establish a duty of care, there must be a relationship of proximity between both of the parties (Seth Lovis & Co., 2018). This test further says that the risk involved in a case must be foreseeable to establish a duty of care on the part of one of the parties of the case and at least this test demands that imposing a penalty must be fair and reasonable. It means because of two previous points, the court cannot held liable to anyone, reasonability must also be checked. It was held in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, that a manufacturer held the duty of care towards the consumer.
Only the existence of a duty of care is not enough. It was held in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson that to be successful under a claim of negligence, some factors must be there in an action. Firstly, the existence of a duty is a much-needed factor. If no duty of care will be there, to question of breach of such duty and other actions will be there. Further, such duty must be breached on the part of the defendant. Breach of duty exists where a person becomes fail to behave as a reasonable and responsible person where he/she was required to do so. Only existence of a duty of care and breach thereof is not enough. Further, it is also necessary that claimant should come out with some loss. Loss can occur either in the form of economic loss, or personal injury or psychiatric injury. The last requirement for a case of negligence that set out under Tort Law is that loss occurred to the claimant must be a direct result of the negligence of the defendant. It was held in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 that if the reason behind the loss of claimant is not the negligent conduct of the defendant, then such defendant cannot be held liable.
Rules
Further, if the defendant becomes a success to prove the fact he/she taken all the reasonable steps to prevent the risk, then also such defendant will not be held liable to pay any damages to the claimant under a claim of negligence.
Defenses:- Defenses are the excuses that a defendant can use against the claimant. There are many types of defenses under Tort law. However, contributory negligence is the most common kind of defense. A defendant can use this defense where in addition to his/her, the claimant also failed to take care of his/her. In this cases where a defendant uses this defense, the court cut short the number of damages to an appropriate level (Legal Match, 2018).
In the given case, the concern is all related to Tamara. Tamara was a girl that liked a particular kind of chocolate that only remain available on Aldi Supermarkets. She was excited all the time to eat her favorite chocolate. One day when she went to purchase her favorite chocolate, she could see only one left in stock. She started running to grab and purchase that chocolate. She could see one another shopper at the end of the aisle; hence, she fastens up her speed more. A puddle of melt ice cream was there on the floor that made the floor slippery. Because of the slippery floor, she fell down. Applying the provisions of Donoghue v Stevenson , in the given case, Aldi supermarket being eth manufacture owed a duty of care in respect to Tamara.
Further also applying the rules set out under Caparo test, supermarket owed such duty, as there was proximity in the relationship of supermarket and Tamara. A supermarket could foresee the risk as it is very general to know that a wet floor can give injury to anyone. In this case, it was the responsibility of the supermarket to keep the floor clean, dry and danger free. However as this is mention that supermarket can prove that the same ensures the dryness and cleanliness of floor in every 40 minutes, but this will not be a defense, as supermarket has not acted as a reasonable person. No matter that in general, in every 40 minutes, every spillage was used to get clean, it was the responsibly of the supermarket to clean the dropped melted ice cream at the very next moment of this happening. Therefore, a breach of duty was there on the part of the supermarket. Moving forward to the third requirements of a successful negligent case i.e. the existence of losses, this is very clear that Tamara has suffered from a serious personal injury. In addition to injury, she had to spend a lot of money on her treatment. Behind personal injury and economic loss occurred to Tamara, the only reason was melted ice cream on the floor, which was a pure negligence of supermarket. Therefore, Tamara can bring an action against Aldi Supermarket.
Aldi supermarket in the case can take help of contributory negligence, as Tamara was also liable for her injury. Her fast running can be established as a supporting cause of injury.
Conclusion
To conclude the issue involved in the studied case, this is to be stated that Tamara can make the Aldi supermarket held liable for breach of duty under negligence and can ask for the damages for personal injury as well as for economic losses.
References
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
E-Law Resources. (2018) Breach of duty in negligence liability. [online] Available from: https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Breach-of-duty.php [Accessed on 16/09/2018]
Legal Match, 2018) Defenses to Tort Liability: Contributory Negligence. [online] Available from: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-tort-liability-contributory-negligence.html [Accessed on 16/09/2018]
Miller, R., L., and Jentz, G., A. (2009) Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases (2nd ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.
Seth Lovis & co. (2018) Professional Negligence, Caparo and assumption of responsibility. [online] Available from: https://www.sethlovisproneg.co.uk/site/professional_negligence_claims/accountants_negligence_london/caparo_industries_v_dickman.html [Accessed on 16/09/2018]
The Lawyers & Jurists, 2018) Tort Is A Civil Injury But All Civil Injuries Are Not A Tort. [online] Available from: https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/tort-is-a-civil-injury-but-all-civil-injuries-are-not-a-tort/ [Accessed on 16/09/2018]
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
