Case Study Analysis

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Issue:
The issue in this case study is whether Tamara can succeed if she sues Aldi Supermarkets
for negligence.
Rules:
In negligence tort, negligence is said to occur when there is a failure to use proper and
reasonable care expected to be taken in such situations (Luntz et al. 2017). In order to sue anyone
for negligence, the elements of negligence have to be proved as given in the case of Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In this case, it is held that to succeed in a negligence claim, the
claimant needs to prove, that the defendant has a duty of care, the defendant has violated such
duty, the violation of such duty caused damage and the damage is reasonably foreseeable and not
very remote. In order to prove that the defendant is liable for the injury or loss, such loss or
injury must be actually caused by the negligent act and it must not be very remote. This is
provided in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd or the
Wagon Mound No. 2 [1967] 1 AC 617 case where it is held that the damage or loss shall not
only be the direct result of the negligence but also reasonably foreseen.
Duty of care means the situations and relations recognized by the law giving rise to a
duty to take care legally. A defendant if failed to exercise such duty of care for which the
claimant suffered a loss or injury, then the defendant is liable under the tort of negligence. The
presence of the duty of care of the defendant to the claimant for personal injury was actually
given in the decision of Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. He laid down the
neighbor test to determine whether the defendant has a duty of care.

2CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The neighbor test consists of two necessities; the reasonable foreseeability of the harm
caused and the presence of proximity relation. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is used as a
precedent in the case of negligence. Another landmark case that elaborates the concept of duty of
care is the Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62, [1936] AC 85; [1935]
UKPCHCA 1, (1935) 54 CLR 49 (21 October 1935).
The next condition that the claimant must prove is the breach of duty by the defendant
(Goudkamp 2017). The defendant must prove that he had caused the breach of his duty towards
the plaintiff. An objective is used to find out that the defendant has caused the breach of his duty
as found in Vaughan v Menlove [1837] 3 Bing. N.C. 467.
The next condition of causation is usually determined by applying the ‘but for’ test as
observed in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. To prove this
criterion, the claimant must prove that the damage or injury suffered by him was caused by the
acts of the defendant. In most of the cases, the ‘but for’ test is applied to resolve the doubt such
that ‘but for’ the acts of the defendant, whether the claimant would have suffered the loss. If the
answer is affirmative, the defendant is not held responsible otherwise the defendant is held liable.
This ‘but for’ test was also observed in the case of Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927.
The last criterion to be proved by the claimant is the remoteness of the damage as
observed in the Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 which says that the defendant can be held
liable only for the loss, injury or damage that can be foreseen by a reasonable person (Zulhuda
2015). When the loss or injury is foreseeable, then the defendant is responsible for total loss or
injury of the plaintiff, even if it is found that the cause was more than expectation. This concept