Negligence Claim against Aldi Supermarket: Elements and Defenses

By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State
The Date

Issue
The issue in this case is determining whether Tamara can prove the various elements of the tort
of Negligence against Aldi Supermkarket and whether Aldi Supermarkets can apply any defense
to limit or avert liability.
Rule
It is a well established principle according to the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
tin a claim of negligence the burden rests on the claimant to prove that three essential elements;
I. The defendant owed him a duty of acre
II. The defendant breached the duty of care
III. He has since suffered harm loss or injury arising from the actions of the defendant.
In the landmark of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Lord Artkin averred that to prove duty of care,
it must be evinced that one is a neighbor. He defined a neighbor as any person who is likely to be
injured by the actions of another. This implies that the claimant must prove that ought to have
him in mind. The court in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) established the cardinal test that
is establishing whether the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. At the onset the claimant
has the reasonability of evincing that there was a reasonable foreseeable risk of harm or injury to
an individual (Kent v Griffiths, 2000). It also falls on the shoulders of the claimant to prove that
there a sufficient degree of proximity identifying their relationship (Home Office v Dorset Yacht
Club, 1970). Lastly, the claimant must demonstrate that it is just, fair and equitable that the court
find that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
The court in Wilsher v Essex Health Authority (1988) held that duty of care is said to be breached
when one his action fail to meet the ordinary and reasonable standard of care that one ought to
abide by in such a situation. Ideally, the litmus test that is applied in determining whether a
defendant breached the duty of care is the ‘reasonable man test’. This test was brought to force
by the court in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) which held that to
establish breach of duty of care in a negligence claim the claimant must prove that a reasonable
person who ordinarily could be in the similar circumstance as the defendant would acted in a
manner that the claimant would not have been harmed or injured. Further in Roe v Minister of

Health (1954) Denning LJ held a defendant will be said to have breached the duty of care if he
omits to take reasonable practicable action against a foreseeable risk of harm.
In a negligence claim were the claimant has suffered loss, harm or injury, the claimant bears the
burden of proving that the loss harm or injury occurred as a result of the actions or omissions of
the defendant. The applicable test in determining Causation is referred to as the ‘BUT FOR’ test.
This test was explained by the court in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1968) where it
held that to prove causation the claimant must show that he would not have been injured or
suffer loss but for the action or omissions of the defendant.
A claim of negligence cannot be successful if loss injury or harm as not been suffered. The
claimant bears the burden of proving loss, harm or injury arising from breach of duty of care. In
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) the court affirmed that the loss harm or damage
suffered ought not to be too remote. This implies that the claimant must prove that he has
suffered a reasonably serious harm or loss.
Defenses in Negligence
The defendant in a negligence claim may opt to defend himself in a bid to limit or avert liability.
The defenses in negligence include Contributory negligence and volentis non fit injuria.
Contributory Negligence
This defense is applicable in cases where the defendant contends that although he is liable the
claimant also acted negligently to a certain degree. It is imperative to note that the burden of
proving contributory negligence rests on the defendant. His contention must satisfy all the
elements in a claim of negligence. If this defense is successful the claimant will be barred from
recovering the full amount of damages. Damages in this case are awarded in percentage. This
implies that if the court finds that the claimant was 30% at fault the defendant will be willable to
pay 70 percent of the damages.
Volentis non fit injuria
This defense is applicable in cases where the defendant argues that claimant volunteered to be
harmed or suffer loss. The defendant must also show that he had taken all reasonable practicable