Negligence Law: Can Tamara Sue Aldi Supermarkets For Her Injury?

Issues

Can Tamara recover from Aldi supermarket for injury sustained by her?

Are there any defenses available to Aldi super market which can protect it from being liable to Tamara?

The given problem relates to law of negligence. As per law of negligence, a person who performs his acts must perform in such a manner so that his acts must not cause any kind of damage or injury to any other person. Law of negligence had been designed in order to protect the injured who is injured due to no fault on his part. In such cases where the injury is inflicted to the injured without any fault on his part, then, the person who is responsible for his injury is held liable and thus in turn has to compensate. (Gibson & Ase 2008)

There are three steps which must be assessed in order to establish negligence on the part of person performing the act, they are, duty of care, its breach and resultant loss or injury.

Duty of care is the first step to hold wrongdoer negligent. It is the duty which is obligated with the wrongdoer as per which he is duty bound to act in a proper and careful manner so that his acts must not harm his neighbor (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]).

The law of negligence states that a person should perform his acts properly and with due care and diligence so that his acts must not harm any person. That ‘any person’ can be one who is likely to be affected by his acts. In Donoghue v Stevenson, the principal of neighborhood is submitted which states that a wrongdoer is liable to any such person who is his neighbor. Neighbor means that any person who is in proximity with the wrongdoer or is likely to be harmed by the act of the wrongdoer (Bourhill v Young [1943]). (Norman 2004)

The duty of care is imposed on the wrongdoer when the affected person is reasonably foreseeable by the wrongdoer Tame v New South Wales (2002).

If neighborhood concept along with reasonable foreseeability is satisfied then the duty of care is said to be on the person performing the act.

Beach of duty of care is the next step towards holding the wrongdoer liable. In the law of negligence, the duty of care is said to be breached when the wrongdoer does not take proper care which he should had taken in the said circumstances (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856). In case the care taken by the wrongdoer is not appropriate then he is said to have breached the duty. But in case proper care had been taken which should had been taken in the like circumstances by a prudent person, then, the duty is not said to be breached. From the above facts it is crystal clear that only taking care is not sufficient rather the level of care should be proper in order to opt out of breach of duty of care. A level of care in one situation must not be said to be sufficient in other as the care to be taken depends on the situation and varies with the circumstances (Bolton v Stone (1951).

Relevant Law

Injury or Damages is the last step to be satisfied in order to hold wrongdoer negligent. The wrongdoer is said to be negligent when the injury is caused by breach of duty of care on the part of wrongdoer. The wrongdoer is liable only in such case where the injury caused to the injured is due to the act of the wrongdoer and not in case where the injury is caused to the injured due to some other reason. There should be proximate relation between the act of wrongdoer and the injury caused to the third party South Australia Asset Management Co v York Montague (1996). The damage or the injury caused to the third party must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. In case the injury caused is too remote in nature then the wrongdoer cannot be held liable under the law of negligence. (McLure 2008)

When all the above principals of negligence are satisfied then only the wrongdoer can be held liable under the law of negligence.

There are defenses which can be taken by wrongdoer in order to protect him from being liable. When the injured himself contributes to his injury then it is a defense of contributory negligence. In such case the liability is apportioned among the wrongdoer and injured accordingly (Joslyn v Berryman [2003]. In case injured by his assent knowingly moves despite knowledge of danger, then, in such case also the injured cannot claim from the wrongdoer as he himself submitted to danger inspite of knowledge of the fact. This concept is known as Volenti non fit injuria.

Tamara who is a chocolate addict goes to Aldi Supermarkets to buy chocolate bar. On one wet Saturday morning, Tamara sees at the far end of the aisle that there is only one chocolate bar left for being sale. She runs for same but as she reaches near the chocolate bar she gets slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream which leads to breaking of her back. She spends several months in hospital due to the said incident and suffered damages in excess of $700,000.

In the given case the duty of care is surely there with Aldi Supermarkets as Tamara being neighbor and reasonably foreseeable, so, the Aldi Supermarkets holds duty of care towards her. The duty of care is there with the Aldi Supermarkets as there are many visitors who visited the Supermarkets and each visitor is neighbor and reasonably foreseeable to the Aldi Supermarkets hence it has duty of care towards all of them.

Now, there was breach on part of Aldi Supermarkets as there was ice cream on floor which lead to falling of Tamara and the floor was cleaned every 40 minutes which is not reasonable. As in Supermarkets there is lot of visitor who visit and one might fall due to wet floor. So the Aldi Supermarkets was duty bound to get the floor cleaned instantly as anybody can be injured due to slipping on the wet floor. Here the duty of care is surely breached by Aldi Supermarkets as they did not took proper care as which should hared been taken by it.

Injury was also caused to Tamara due to breach of duty of care on the part of Aldi Supermarkets as the injury was reasonably foreseeable and there is clear proximity between the injury and the act of the Aldi Supermarkets which makes the Aldi Supermarkets liable under the law of negligence.

As all the three elements of negligence are established on part of Aldi Supermarkets thus Tamara can claim from it under law of negligence.

But Aldi Supermarkets can take defense of contributory negligence on part of Tamara as Tamara was running for chocolate and thus feel due to that also. If Aldi Supermarkets can prove this then the liability on its part can be reduced accordingly.

Conclusion

To conclude it can be assessed that Tamara can seek compensation under law of negligence from Aldi Supermarkets but the compensation will depend upon the injury suffered by her. And if Aldi Supermarkets can prove that the injury that was caused to Tamara due to her own fault then the liability can be apportioned between Tamara and Aldi Supermarkets accordingly by applying the concept of contributory negligence.

Reference List

Books/Articles/Journals

Gibson and Ase 2008, Business Law, Pearson Education Australia, Prentice Hall 3rd Ed.

Norman, K 2004, “Who then in law is my neighbour?”

McLure, CJ 2008, A Practical Guide To The Resolution Of Causation Issues In Negligence.

Case laws

Bolton v Stone (1951).

Bourhill v Young [1943].

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).