Commercial Law Aldi Supermarkets

Question: Discuss about the Commercial Lawfor Aldi Supermarkets. Answer: Introduction In the present case, the issue is if Tamara can sue Aldi supermarkets in negligence as C. had suffered any injury when she slipped on puddle of ice cream on the floor and broke her back. As a result of this injury, Tamara had to spend many months in hospital and the general damages alone exceeded $700,000. Therefore, now Tamara wants to know if she can successfully sue Aldi supermarkets in negligence. On the other hand, it has to be seen if a difference is available to Aldi supermarkets if it can establish that the supermarket aisles are inspected by a staff member and any spillage is cleaned every 40 minutes. In order to decide this issue, the general principles related with lock negligence have to be discussed and seen if the all the necessary elements of negligence can be established by Tamara. In case where one person has a duty of care towards the other, negligence can be described as doing something or the failure to do something that would be done by some other reasonable person and due to which an injury or damage has been caused to the other person. The provisions of Civil Liability Act are used to decide the presence of negligence and the liability faced by them due to their negligent acts. If a person is going to sue another in negligence, the person seeks financial compensation for the damage suffered by it. In such a case, the purpose is to put the person in the same place in which he or she would have been if the negligence would not have taken place. In order to decide if negligence has taken place or not, it has to be seen if the below mentioned poor questions are satisfied or not. Hence, it has to be considered if the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, if this duty was violated by the defendant, if an injury has been suffered by the plaintiff and if such injury or the damage experienced by the plaintiff was the direct consequence of this contravention of duty on part of the defendant. The law provides that all the above mentioned factors should be satisfied. On the other hand if any one of these factors is not satisfied, then it cannot be established by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant. In such a case, it needs to be considered what they don't duty of care means. In this context, duty of care is the legal obligation according to which a person is required to evade causing damage to others. Such a duty arises when the harm is reasonably foreseeable in case reasonable care is not exercised. In this regard, it is also required that are sufficient relationship of closeness (proximity) should also be present between the two persons so that it can be said that the duty of care exists on part of the defendant. For example, drivers have a duty of care towards the other road users and such duty is also present in case of the relationship between a doctor and patient. The Civil Liability Act has imposed certain qualifications on the duty of care, like food donors and good Samaritans. The next requirement is to see if there is a violation of this duty. For evaluating if the duty has been violated, first of all the court will consider the standard of care that is applicable in a particular case under the circumstances. This standard of care needs to be determined by taking into consideration what would have been done by some other reasonable person in like conditions. If the defendant had acted unreasonably or if the actions of the defendant were well below the standard that can be expected in such a case, it can be said that the duty has been broken by the defendant. It is also required that the injury/damage experienced by the plaintiff should be caused by the breach of the duty of care. While in some cases, it can be easily stated that the breach of duty was the obvious cause of the injury. For example when a person had fallen on the wet floor, a clear connection exists between the wet floor and the injury that has been suffered by such a person. On the other hand, in some cases it may be difficult to decide the exec cause of the injury. For instance, there can be more than one event that may have caused the injury. In the present case, Tamara knew that her favorite brand of chocolate was only available at Aldi supermarkets. Therefore, when one day she saw that only one chocolate bar was left for sale at the far end of the confectionary aisle of the local Aldi supermarket, she starts to run towards it. When another shopper appears, Tamara starts to run even quickly. But when she reached for the chocolate bar, there was a puddle of ice cream on the floor. Consequently, Tamara slipped on it and fell on the floor. She broke her back. On the basis of the principles of negligence that have been mentioned above, it can be said in this case that Aldi supermarket had a duty of care towards all the persons who visited the store. In this case it is clear that this duty has been violated by the defendant, Aldi supermarkets when they failed to clean the floor immediately. As a result of this breach of duty, Tamara had suffered an injury and this injury was the direct result of the breach of duty by Aldi sup ermarkets. Even if Aldi supermarkets establishes that a staff member cleaned the spillage every 40 minutes, the supermarket will be liable to Tamara for the loss suffered by her including the general damages of more than $700,000. References Deakin, Simon; Angus Johnston; Basil Markesinis (2003) Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law, Oxford University Press Kujinga, Benjamin (2009). "Reasonable Care And Skill The Modern Scope Of The Auditor's Duty". GAA Accounting Tomasic, Roman; Bottomley, Stephen; McQueen, Rob (2002) Audits and Auditors Corporations Law in Australia, Federation Press Case Law Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1933) 50 CLR 387 Shaddock Associates v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225 Wyong Shire Council v Short (1980) 146 CLR 40