Negligence Lawsuit Against Aldi

This assignment explores whether Tamara can successfully sue Aldi Supermarkets for negligence after slipping and sustaining injuries on a wet floor in their store. It examines the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, applying relevant case law to argue Tamara's case and consider potential contributory negligence by Tamara. The analysis culminates in legal advice for Tamara regarding pursuing a claim against Aldi.

Commercial Law

2 Commercial Law
Issue
Whether the damages caused to Tamara can be claimed by her against Aldi Supermarkets
(AD), under the tort of negligence, or not?
Rule
To put the definition of negligence in the simplest of terms, it is the contravention of the
obligation of care, which was foreseeable and which resulted in injury or harm or loss to the
other party (Harvey & Marston, 2009). To establish the case of negligence, the injured party has
to show in the court that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, which was substantial
in nature, not too remote and reasonably foreseeable (Gibson & Fraser, 2014).
To establish a duty of care, the conditions laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
[1990] 2 AC 605 have to be applied. This case provides that the obligation of care is present
when there is proximity between parties, imposed penalties being fair, and risk of injury being
foreseeable (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013). For duty of care, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL
100 is also of assistance. This case held that proximity and foreseeability of this case resulted in
a duty of care being owed to the customer by the manufacturer (Latimer, 2012).
Once the duty of care is established to be present, its breach needs to be established. An
example of this is Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 in which the defendant was
deemed to have contravened their duty of care for by not providing the safety gear to the plaintiff
(Martin & Lancer, 2013). There is a need to show that the injury or loss had really taken place
and in doing so there was a need to adopt the view of a reasonable person as was seen in Wyong
Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 (Jade, 2018). Where the losses are remote, the

3 Commercial Law
damages are not paid and an example of this is Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and
Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (H2O, 2016). There is also a need to prove that there was
direct causation between the injury which happened and the contravention of obligation of care.
In Donoghue v Stevenson, the failure of the manufacturer in keeping the contents of bottle
unadulterated caused in direct sickness of the plaintiff (Latimer, 2012).
Once these are shown, the damages are awarded to the plaintiff. But for this purpose,
there is a need to apply “but for test” given in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]
1 QB 428. This test provides that the damages have to be awarded to the plaintiff when they can
show that the harm to them would not have been caused had the negligence by defendant not
been undertaken (Strong & Williams, 2011).
There are different defences which can be raised by the defendants where the plaintiff
makes a case of negligence against them. These help in reducing the amount of compensation to
be paid by them to the plaintiff, in proportion to the part played by the plaintiff in their injuries.
Contributory negligence, as the name suggests, shows the contributions made by the plaintiff in
their harm (Latimer, 2012). Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 is an example of this concept
where the plaintiff had his awarded damages reduced by the court, as the family was not wearing
a seat belt, when the accident happened owing to the negligence of the defendant (Swarb, 2018).
Application
As per the facts given in the problem scenario, a possible case of negligence is attempted
to be raised by Tamara against AD. However, in order to do so, the points established in the rules
segments have to be fulfilled. The first requisite is to show that AD owed a duty of care to
Tamara. For this purpose, duty of care would be owed by AD to Tamara, based on Donoghue v

4 Commercial Law
Stevenson, as she was s customer of the supermarket, where the two had relationship of
proximity. Applying the requisites of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, there was a
foreseeability of risk of harm, as there was an ice cream puddle on the floor, which made it
slippery and any person would have slipped on it. The proximity is established through the
previous case. This means that where AD is awarded with penalties, it would be fair for Tamara.
Based on Paris v Stepney Borough Council, the breach here was not keeping the floor clean. AD
can show that the floor was cleaned on regular intervals, but where such instances occurred (like
ice cream puddle) they were required to be tended to immediately.
As per Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt, any supermarket would have undertaken the
cleaning process as soon as the floor became slippery owing to ice cream puddle. Unlike
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, here the losses were not
remote as Tamara sustained bad injuries. Based on the “but for test”, the injuries would not have
taken place had AD undertaken the cleaning of floor in timely manner. This satisfies all the
requirements of making a case of negligence against AD.
Though, here Tamara played a contributory role in her harm by running on the
supermarket floor on a wet day. Based on Froom v Butcher, this would be deemed as a
contributory negligence of Tamara for the reasons of not taking care of herself and running for a
product, where any prudent person would have avoided doing so, based on the day being a wet
one. The presence of this contributory negligence would mean that the damages awarded to her,
would have to be brought down, which would be proportionate to her contribution.

5 Commercial Law
Conclusion
Thus, from the undertaken discussion, the advice for Tamara is to raise a claim of
negligence against AD before the court and claim monetary compensation from AD for the
general damages. However, she would have to be prepared for getting the monetary
compensation reduced based on the proportion of her contributory negligence.

6 Commercial Law
Reference List
Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law 2014 (8th ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Education
Australia.
H2O. (2016). Wagon Mound (No. 1) -- "The Oil in the Wharf Case". Retrieved from:
https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/4919
Harvey, B., & Marston, J. (2009). Cases and Commentary on Tort (6th ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jade. (2018). Wyong Shire Council v Shirt. Retrieved from: https://jade.io/j/?
a=outline&id=66842
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012 (31st ed.) Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia
Limited.
Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2013). Tort Law: Text and Materials (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J., & Lancer, D. (2013). AQA Law for AS Fifth Edition (5th ed.). Oxon: Hachette UK.
Strong, S.I., & Williams, L. (2011). Complete Tort Law: Text, Cases, & Materials. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swarb. (2018). Froom v Butcher: CA 21 Jul 1975. Retrieved from: http://swarb.co.uk/froom-v-
butcher-ca-21-jul-1975/