Essay Example on Assessment Duty of Care Issue Does the Defendant

Assessment Duty of Care Issue Does the defendant Aldi Supermarket owe the Plaintiff Tamara and its customers a duty of care Rule Duty of care are known as legal obligation to avoid causing harm and arises where harm is reasonable foreseeable if care is not taken It is also stated that you owe a duty of care to any person that might be affected by your actions and whose wellbeing you should consider before you do something Application In this case the Plaintiff Tamara injure herself by slipping on a puddle of melted ice cream in Aldi Supermarket The injuries happened on Aldi Supermarket s premises This established that the defendant has duty of care to the customers that are shopping on their premises As reiterated in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 Stevenson owes a duty of care to his customers as manufacturer of the product that he is selling This shows the similarity between Stevenson and Aldi Supermarket in this case which both owes duty of care their customer Conclusion In conclusion Aldi Supermarket owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff Tamara and their customers Standard of Care Issue The Plaintiff Tamara will need to prove that the Defendant Aldi Supermarket has breached its duty of care to their customers Rule There are standard of care in which recognised duties of care will require to meet 

Duty of care is breached and fail to meet the standard if the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable not significant and fail to take reasonable precautions Application In this case Tamara had slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream that was not cleaned up by Aldi Supermarket s staffs Tamara s injuries can be avoided if the staff had done their job and meet the standard of care that are required for the staff to follow for the safety of their customers According to Conclusion Therefore Aldi Supermarket has breached its duty of care to their customers and failed to meet their standard of care Causation and Remoteness Issue A puddle of melted ice cream was not cleaned by Aldi Supermarket s Staff Rule The losses incurred must be caused by negligent of act What if the negligent act had never happened would the plaintiff have suffered a loss The damage must not only be a direct consequence of the negligent act but must have also been reasonably foreseeable Application In this case Tamara injures herself by running towards the end of the aisle to get the last chocolate but the main cause of her injuries was due to her slipping on a puddle of melted ice cream on the floor It can be presumed that the negligent act would never happened if the defendant would have told the staff to clean it in the first place as it is their duty of care to ensure the safety of their customers on their premises but this case may be argued however as reiterated in the case of Strong v Woolworths Ltd 2012 HCA 5 in which the High court rejected Woolworths Ltd argument by stating that the onus of proof could be satisfied by considering the probabilities in circumstances in which the evidence did not establish when the chip was deposited Conclusion 

The plaintiff would not have suffered a loss if the negligent act had never happened Contributory Negligence Issue Did Tamara risked herself by running towards the last chocolate Rule Contributory negligence occurs when the injured person is careless regarding their own safety If the person fails to take reasonably care for their own safety or loss then they will be found contributorily negligent The court can divide and share out the negligent between the plaintiff and the defendant and award the damages accordingly Application In this case Tamara ran towards the end of the confectionary aisle to get the last chocolate in the Supermarket When she saw another shopper at the end of the aisle she ran even faster to make sure that the shopper would not get the last chocolate but she slipped and injure herself due to the uncleaned puddle of melted ice cream As reiterated in the case of Hamilton v Duncan 2010 NSWDC 90 the Court found the plaintiff 30 contributory negligence for not maintaining a proper lookout for the hole which shows contributory negligence had not occurred as Tamara was not aware of the puddle of melted ice cream Conclusion Tamara was not being careless and did not contributed to the negligence Voluntary Assumption of Risk Issue 

Did Tamara knew the risk of running to get her chocolate bar Rule In proceedings relating to liability of negligence a person that suffers from injuries is assumed to have been aware of the risk of harm unless the person is able to prove the probabilities that he nor she was not aware of the risk If a person understood and has accepted the risk involved the person will not be able to blame nor sue the others for the injuries sustained Application Tamara ran towards the end of the aisle to ensure that she'll get the last chocolate available but slipped due to the puddle of melted ice cream that was not cleaned up by Aldi Supermarket s staff It can be presumed that Tamara were not aware of the puddle of melted ice cream which caused her to slip resulting to her injuries According to the rule of Voluntary Assumption of Risk a person must be aware of the risk of harm unless the person is able to prove that they are not aware of it as reiterated in the case of Glad Retail Cleaning v Alvarenga 2013 NSWCA 482 Conclusion Tamara was not aware of the risk she took by running to get her chocolate bar as she slipped from the puddle of melted ice cream