The key concern in the given case is to ascertain whether Tamara can press charges against Aldi Supermarkets (the defendant) on account of negligence on their part resulting in damages to Tamara (the plaintiff).
For the given situation, tort of negligence would be the relevant law. For proving the presence of the same, it is imperative that there must be fulfillment of three main conditions. Even if one of these conditions is not fulfilled, then the tort would not be applicable and defendant can be made liable to pay damages on account of negligence (Harvey, 2009)
One of the required conditions is that defendant has a duty to care which is directed towards the plaintiff. For this to happen, it is imperative that plaintiff has to be a neighbor with regards to the defendant. This would happen if the choice of undertaking or refraining from a given action could have potential adverse consequences for the plaintiff as highlighted in the Donoghue v. Stevenson  AC 562 (Lindgren, 2011). It is noteworthy that the responsibility to comply with duty to care is valid only for the foreseeable damages only as for these only could it be expected that defendant takes requisite measures to protect plaintiff from sustaining any damages (Latimer, 2016).
Yet another pivotal condition deals with the breach of the above duty which would happen when the defendant does not perform the various actions required to comply with the same. In this regards, the defendant must take all steps which any reasonable person is expected to implement given a particular situation (Harvey, 2009). The care extended would essentially depend on the situation at hand and would tend to vary accordingly. A prime example of this is that if negligible by the defendant could potentially result in foreseeable death of the plaintiff then it is essential that the highest care should be accorded with zero tolerance of any lapses as the likely damage is very high. However, in particular circumstances if adequate measures are not undertaken by the defendant, then it would amount to duty breach (Gibson and Fraser, 2014).
Another imperative condition is that loss must be incurred by the plaintiff and it should be linked to the breach of duty. However, the simultaneous existence of damage and breach of duty is not an adequate condition as it is imperative that the two should be linked. This could be done by proving that the damage suffered by the plaintiff was avoidable if the defendant would have complied with duty to care (Davenport and Parker, 2014). Besides, the definition of damage as represented in tort of negligence is wide in coverage and includes harassment of mental and emotional nature besides physical and monetary damage (Lindgren, 2011).
It is noteworthy that some responsibility to ensure the safety of the plaintiff also lies on the plaintiff. It is essential that the plaintiff must not act in a negligent manner or else this may serve as a potent defense for the defendant to minimize the underlying liability on account of contributory negligence (Latimer, 2016).
The given situation revolves around Tamara. She really loves chocolates but the issue is that the brand of chocolates which she likes can be bought only at Aldi Supermarkets.. Despite being a daily customer to the Aldi store located nearby, often she finds the brand like by her missing or out of stock. However on a given Saturday, while she was strolling in the confectionery aisle of the Aldi store, she happened to see that one last bar of her favorite chocolate still remained but it was located at the other end of the aisle which was quite far. The moment she sees the bar lying, she makes a sprint towards it but when she sees another customer moving towards that side of the aisle, she further hastened her speed of running so as to approach to the bar before the other customer could make a claim. However, in this valiant attempt, she suffered a broken back due to slipping on the melted ice-cream present on her way. Due to this she had to remain in the hospital for quite some months besides suffering monetary damages.
The above situation needs to be analyzed in the wake of the three conditions highlighted above for proving negligence. Duty of care does arise here as Tamara is a customer and the retail shops need to take all the measures possible to ensure the safety of their respective customers. The customers would be in a neighbor relationship as failure to take requisite measures on part of the supermarket may lead to injuries or other damages being sustained by the customers. Further, the customer falling over due to spillage of some nature is a foreseeable danger to which the duty of care applies. It is a normal practice in various retail stores and supermarkets that cleaning and inspection of the aisles are done after periodic intervals. In case of Aldi, this was done after every 40 minutes which seems reasonable enough a time and it would be highly impractical for the store owner to allocate dedicated manpower for each of the aisles. Thus, there is no breach of duty here. Further, it is imperative to note that the damage caused here is on account of negligence observed by Tamara herself as the store owner does not expect customers to run across the aisle and it is expected that they remain vigilant as spillages are commonplace.
Based on the above discussion, it would be fair to conclude that Aldi store did not breach duty to care and the damage caused to Tamara was primarily on account of her own negligent action and hence she cannot claim damages from the store.
Davenport, S. & Parker, D. (2014). Business and Law in Australia, 2nd ed. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law, 8th ed. Sydney: Pearson Publications.
Harvey, C. (2009). Foundations of Australian law, 2nd ed. Victoria: Tilde University Press.
Latimer, P. (2016). Australian Business Law, 4th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis Study Guide.
Lindgren, KE. (2011). Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia, 12th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.