Present Case to Win the Issue If Tamara †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About the Present Win the Issue Tamara? Answer: Intoducation 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. Issue: The facts given in the present case to win the issue if Tamara will be successful if it sues Aldi Supermarkets in negligence. The reason is that Tamara suffered an injury when she slipped on the floor in a puddle of ice cream. Due to the fall, Tamara suffered serious injuries on her back. Therefore, she had to remain in hospital for a long time and the general damages amounted to more than $700,000. Therefore, Tamara wants to know if she has a case against Aldi supermarkets in negligence. At the time of giving this advice, any differences that may be available to the supermarket. Also needs to be considered, especially as the supermarket claims that they have a staff member who regularly inspects the aisles and cleans any spillage after every 40 minutes. Therefore, the principles of law negligence, have to be applied in this case, and it has to be examined is the necessary elements for negligence can be established in this case or not. Rule: The law provides that when a party has a duty of care in favor of the other party, negligence can be described as doing something or the failure to do something that would be done by any other reasonable person and due to which, injury or damage has been caused to the other party (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). For the purpose of finding if negligence is present in a particular case and also to fix the responsibility of the defendant for negligence; Civil Liability Act can also be relied upon. When it has been decided by one party that the other party should be soon in negligence, financial compensation is sought by such a party from the defendant for the damage that was caused to it (Hepple, 1997). Therefore, in negligence, damages are provided with a view to place the claimant in the same position in which he or she would have been if there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. In order to determine if the defendant can be held as negligent, there are four elements that nee d to be established by the claimant. For this purpose, it has to be established that the defendant owed a duty of care, there should be a breach of the duty of care, some injury or damage should have been suffered by the claimant and this injury or damage should be the direct result of the contravention of the duty of care (Barker, 1993). Under the law of negligence, all these elements should exist so that it can be said that the claimant as a successful claim against the defendant in negligence. On the other hand, even if one of these elements does not exist, the negligence of the defendant cannot be established. In this way, it is very significant to describe the meaning of duty of care. Under the law of negligence, this duty can be explained as the legal obligation of the defendant, which requires that injury or damage should not be caused to others. The duty of care of a person exists when it can be reasonably foreseen that the other person may suffer harm if reasonable care is not exercised. According to the law, this duty will be present only if sufficient proximity exists between the claimant and the defendant and due to this proximity, it can be stated that the defendant had the duty in favor of the claimant. An example of such a case is the duty of care that a motor vehicle driver has towards other persons pr esent on the road. But in this regard, the civil liability act has imposed certain qualifications on the duty of care, for example food donors and good Samaritans. The claimant can bring a successful election in negligence if there is a breach of duty of care. For the purpose of determining if there has been a breach of this duty, the court considers the standard of care that is applicable in the particular case (Stapleton, 2003). This standard of care can be applied on the basis of the fact if any other reasonable person would also have acted in the same way under similar circumstances. If it can be said that the actions of the defendant fell below the standard of care and cannot be described as reasonable, it can be determined that the defendant is liable for the breach of duty that he owed towards the claimant. For a successful action in negligence, it also needs to be established that the injury or damage caused to the claimant was the direct consequence of such a breach (Stapleton, 1991). For example, if a person falls on the wet floor, it can be said that a direct connection exists between the wet floor and the injuries suffered by such a person. Application: After mentioning the requirements for a successful election in negligence, and advice can be given to Tamara that she may have a successful claim against Aldi Supermarkets. Tamara saw from a distance that only one bar of her favorite chocolate was left for sale, she ran to grab it. When another customer also walked towards the chocolate bar, Tamara ran even faster, and therefore she slipped on the floor, where a puddle of ice cream was present. Tamara suffered serious injuries when she fell on the floor. Therefore, Tamara can successfully sued the supermarket in negligence, because all the necessary elements to establish the negligence of the supermarket are present. Conclusion: Even if the supermarket established that one of these top members regularly inspected the aisles and similarly any spillage on the floor was clean within 40 minutes, a defense will not be available to the supermarket. This is due to the reason that even in such a case, it can be said that the injuries caused to Tamara were the direct result of the fact that the supermarket has breached its duty of care towards her. References Bob Hepple, (1997) Negligence: The Search for Coherence, 50 Current Legal Problems 69 Jane Stapleton, (1991) Duty of Care and Economic Loss: A Wider Agenda 107 Law Quarterly Review 249 Jane Stapleton, (2003) The Golden Thread at the Heart of Tort Law: Protection of the Vulnerable 24 Australian Bar Review 135 Kit Barker, (1993) Unreliable Assumptions in the Modern Law of Negligence, 109 Law Quarterly Review 461, 483