Business law Aldi Supermarkets Negligent - Free Sample

Question: Discuss about the Business law Aldi Supermarkets Negligent. Answer: Relevant Issues Is Aldi Supermarkets negligent for the losses of Tamara? If yes, then, is there any defense which can reduce the liability of Aldi Supermarkets? Relevant Law To prove the above issues, the analysis of the law of negligence is required. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the law of negligence was analyzed for the first time wherein it was held by Lord Atkin that no harm must be caused to the consumer for the products supplied by the manufactures. So to prove negligence the basic requirements include: (RN Moles, 2016) That the defendants when performing or not performing anything, then, he must make sure that his performance must not hamper the interest of any plaintiff. This preservation of plaintiffs interest is DUTY OF CARE in negligence (Sullivan v Moody (2001). The defendant is duty bound to prove care provided he can foresee that his performance will affect the plaintiff negatively and thus he must not indulge himself in such actions (Burnie Port Authority v General Jones [1994]). The defendant is duty bound only for those plaintiff who are connected and proximately associated with him, that is, the acts of the defendant will have a direct impact on the plaintiff making the plaintiff the neighbor of the defendant and thus protection must be provided (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt[1980]. (P Latimer, 2012) The defendant has failed to fulfill his obligation of care and is called BREACH OF DUTY. When the defendant is not able to achieve the level or standard that is expected from him so that care can be provided to plaintiff, then, the duty is considered to be not performed (R v Patel[2010]); The violation of duty should cause some harm to the plaintiff. But, the damage is considered to be the outcome of negligence only when the damage can be reasonably foreseen by the defendant and that the loss that is caused is because of the performance of the defendant and not because of some indirect actions (Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999). (Barnett, 2014). Once proved, the defendant is negligent. But, if the defendant can prove that the damage which is caused to the plaintiff is not by the performance of the defendant alone but the plaintiff has also acted negligently and it is her negligence which has also resulted in the contribution of damage then the contributory defense can be availed. The liability of the defendant can be reduced proportionately Kalokerinos v Burnett[1996]. Application of the relevant law on the facts of the case It is submitted that the Aldi Supermarkets is negligent and must compensate Tamara. The negligence is established because of the following reasons: Tamara is a regular visitor at Aldi. Every person who is in possession of the premise should provide safety to the visitors of the premise as per This duty is also imposed on Aldi. The duty of care by Aldi towards Tamara exists because Tamara is neighbor of Aldi because she is the regular visitor and any action taken by Aldi in the market will impact Tamara unswervingly. There is proximity between the two as per Burnie Port Authority. Aldi is aware of all the outcomes of the acts that are taken by it. Aldi can reasonably perceive the effects of its actions on Tamara. So, there is reasonable forseeability. Thus, Aldi can be casted with the DUTY OF CARE that it must furnish against Tamara. That Aldi must makes sure that its aisle and the floors must be kept clean so that no kind of harm is suffered by any of the visitors. To achieve this duty, Aldi makes sure that its members must inspect the market aisles and must clean the spillages every forty minutes. Thus, the duty of care is furnished by Aldi but, the level of care is not met as per R v Patel. Considering the crowd that is present at the Aldi, the duration of forty minutes is not adequate. The inspection/spillage must be more regular to avoid any accidents. So, the duty is not as per the standards and there is BREACH OF DUTY. Tamara in order to get hold of her favorite chocolate ran very fast and slipped over the ice cream that was there on the aisle and which was not kept clean by the Aldi. The fall resulted in causing Tamara to surfer bodily injuries and damages of $700,000. So, the breach of duty by Aldi has resulted in damages to Tamara. The losses that are caused are because of the breach of duty of care and can be reasonably predictable by Aldi Supermarkets. So, all the above facts when applied to the case laws reveal that the Aldi Supermarkets is totally negligent in its actions because the duty of care is not furnish by its properly and which has resulted in causing loss to Tamara. But, Aldi Supermarkets cannot be held liable for all the losses and it has a defense of contributory negligence. Aldi can prove that though it has not catered its duty properly which has resulted in the loss of Tamara. But, the loss that is caused to Tamara is exaggerated by her actions as well. If Tamara would have not run very fast on the aisle of the supermarket in order to grab the chocolate knowing the fact that the market has frequent visitors and that some other customers is also approaching the chocolate section, then, the loss that is suffered by her can be reduced. Tamara has contributed because she ran very fast knowing the fact that it was a wet day and there are chances that she might get sip if she will run fast. Thus, Tamara has contributed to her own loss. So, Aldi can rely on the defense of contributory negligence. Concluding remarks The Aldi has not provided adequate care to the market visitors and this breach of care has resulted in loss to Tamara. So, there is clear negligence on the part of Aldi. But, Aldi can prove that Tamara was also negligent in her actions and has contributed to her own loss by running fast on aisle on the wet day. References Books/Articles/Journals Atkins et al. (2014) Ethics and Law for Australian Nurses. Cambridge University Press. Barnett K, (2014) Equitable compensation and remoteness: not so remote from the common law after all. P Latimer (2012) Australian Business law, CCH Australia Limited. R N Moles (2016) Law Reports, McAlister or Donoghue (Pauper) v. Stevenson (1932). Case laws Burnie Port Authority v General Jones [1994]. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Kalokerinos v Burnett[1996]. Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999). R v Patel[2010]. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt[1980].