Tamara is addicted to chocolate. The only retailer that sells her favourite brand of chocolate bar is Aldi Supermarkets. Tamara goes to her local Aldi Supermarket every day to buy her favourite chocolate bar but it is often sold out. She gets very upset when this happens. One wet Saturday morning in January Tamara is walking down the confectionary aisle of her local Aldi Supermarket and she sees at the far end of the aisle there is only one chocolate bar left for sale. She begins to run towards the chocolate bar. Another shopper appears at the far end of the aisle. Tamara runs even faster. As she reaches for the chocolate bar she slips on a puddle of melted ice cream and breaks her back. She spends several months recovering in hospital with
general damages alone in excess of $700,000.
Tamara now wishes to sue Aldi Supermarkets in negligence for her losses. Aldi Supermarkets can prove that a staff member inspects the supermarket aisles and cleans up any spillages every 40 minutes.
Advise Tamara.
Answer:
Issues
Can Tamara have any right towards the supermarket under the law of negligence? If yes, can the supermarket claim any defense in order to protect its interest?
Relevant Law
The law of negligence is the principle law which resolves around the raised issues.
The law of negligence simply imposes a duty of care which must be furnished by every defendant against the plaintiff to make sure that no injury is caused to such plaintiff because of any acts or omissions of the defendant. (Allan, 2007)
To prove any defendant liable under the law of negligence the main essential requirements are:
Duty of care which implies that whenever any defendant is pursuing any actions or inactions, then, it is his duty that he must carry out his acts or omission in such manner so that no injury is caused to any plaintiff because of the defendant (Pyrenees Shire Council v Day, [1998]). But, the duty must be provided by any defendant against the plaintiff with whom he shares proximate relationships, that is, the acts/omissions will directly fall upon the plaintiff (Anns v Merton London Borough Council , [1978] )and the plaintiff can reasonably foresee the impact that may results because of his actions or inaction (Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman , [1990]). In such state the defendant must cater his acts adequately and with all care and precautions. (Michael, 2009)
In (Papantonakis v. Australian Telecommunications. Commission, (1985) ), it was held that every occupier has a duty of care to provide protections to his entrants.
The duty of care should not be performed by the defendant as per the level that is expected from him in the particular situation. The non performance of the care as per the adequate level results in breach (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt , (1979)). The level of care that is expected from any defendant depends upon the situation wherein it is desired to be performed. If the risk that may incur is high then the level of care should be high. If the plaintiff is vulnerable then the defendant must be extra cautious.(C, I, & M, 2007)
When the duty of care that is granted to the defendant is not performed resulting in breach and such breach causes harm to the plaintiff, then, the third element of negligence is performed.
So, all the three elements results in the establishment of negligence.
If the defendant who is found to be negligent wants to protect his interest then he can prove that the plaintiff has also indulged himself into wrongful actions which also contributed to his loss. It is called the defense of contributory negligence and if once proved then the defendant can reduce his liabilities to the extent of the wrong that is undertaken by the plaintiff and is held in (Kalokerinos v Burnett , [1996]). (C, I, & M, 2007)
The law is now applied to the facts of the case.
Application of law
Aldi Supermarkets is a local supermarket and is regularly visited by customers. Thus, bring in possession of the supermarket building. Aldi Supermarkets has a legal obligation to keep the premises safe from any kind of hazard or danger. As per (Papantonakis v. Australian Telecommunications. Commission, (1985) )every occupier has a legal duty to provide safe premises to its entrants.
Thus, Aldi Supermarkets is also imposed with this duty of care.
But, Aldi Supermarkets has not complied with his duty of care adequately. Even knowing the fact that the supermarket is frequently visited with customers, the floor of the supermarket was not clean. The supermarket used to clean the spillages every 40 minutes, but, the duration of 40 minutes are too long at a place which is filled with customers. In order to avoid any kind of damages, the supermarket must employ staff which should clean up the aisle regularly especially at place where the chances of spillage is high.
Thus, as per (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt , (1979)), the supermarket has not complied with the level of care that is expected from him and thus there is clear breach of duty of care on the part of the supermarket.
Thus, because of the breach of duty of care on the part of the supermarket, Tamara slips on the melted ice cream and breaks her back. She is hospitalized and suffered damages of worth $700,000.
Thus, because of the breach of duty of care by the supermarket, losses are sustained to Tamara.
So, Tamara has full right to sue the supermarket under the law of negligence for the losses that are sustained to her.
However, the facts also reveals that Tamara is fond of chocolates and daily used to visit Aldi Supermarkets to buy her chocolates but normally the same are sold out. However, on one day, when the day was wet, she visits Aldi Supermarkets and was walking down the confectionary aisle of her local Aldi Supermarket. From the far end she sees that the end of the aisle there is only one chocolate bar left for sale. In order to grab the same she ran towards the same and after seeing that there is another shopper, she ran even faster.
It is submitted that knowing the facts that by running so fast inside a supermarket, which is filled with customers, there are chances that someone might suffer injuries, Tamara still preferred to run very fast. Thus, she has also acted which has also contributed to her loss.
Thus, the supermarket can take the defense of contributory negligence in order to protect his interest and can rely on (Kalokerinos v Burnett , [1996])
Conclusion
Tamara can sue the supermarket under the law of negligence but the supermarket can rely in the defense of the contributory negligence in order to reduce its liabilities proportionately. So, Tamara is liable to sue the supermarket for damages which is equal to the loss that is incurred by her less that contribution of damage that is incurred by Tamara.
Bibliography
Allan, B. (2007). Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council ([1978] ).
C, S., I, K., & M, P. (2007). The Australian Medico-legal Handbook. Elsevier Australia.
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman ([1990]).
Kalokerinos v Burnett ([1996]).
Michael, B. (2009). Intellectual Property Rights and Food Security. CABI.
Papantonakis v. Australian Telecommunications. Commission ((1985) ).
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day ([1998]).
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt ((1979)).
