Aldi Supermarket Negligence Case Analysis

This assignment analyzes a negligence case involving Aldi Supermarket. Tamara slipped on melted ice cream, sustaining injuries. The analysis examines whether Aldi breached their duty of care, the potential defense of contributory negligence, and the application of the voluntary assumption of risk defense. The assignment delves into the legal principles of causation and explores the relationship between Aldi's actions and Tamara's injuries.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW 0
Commercial Law

COMMERCIAL LAW 1
Issue 1
The issue is whether Aldi Supermarkets owes a duty of care to Tamara.
Rule 1
The law of negligence is applied in the given case which is a part of common law in
Australia. Negligence is defined as a person’s breach of the duty of care due to which another
person faces injury or loss (Steele, 2010). In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case,
Lord Atkin provided the key elements of the law of negligence which include the duty of
care, breach of such duty and resulting damages (Cornock, 2011). In Caparo Industries Plc. v
Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 case, Lord Bridge provide the principle of “Caparo test” which
provides three stages for imposing a duty of care which includes reasonable foreseeability,
proximity relationship, and reasonable reason to impose a duty of care (Sokol, 2012).
Application 1
In this case, a large number of people visit supermarkets, and it is reasonable to understand
that supermarket should continuously clean their floor to ensure that customers are not
getting injured by slipping on the floor. Aldi supermarkets have reasonable foreseeability of
cleaning the floor; therefore, they have a duty of care towards Tamara.
Conclusion 1
In conclusion, it is reasonable for Aldi Supermarkets to clear their floor to prevent any injury
to customers, therefore, they have a duty of care towards Tamara.

COMMERCIAL LAW 2
Issue 2
The issue is whether Aldi Supermarkets breached their duty of care.
Rule 2
A breach of duty occurs if a person who has a duty of care towards another individual failed
to fulfil the standard which resulted in causing injury to the party. In Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 345 HL, the court
held that negligence is not performing an action which a reasonable person would have done
in similar circumstances.
Application 2
Supermarkets are liable towards their customers’ security; therefore, it is reasonable to
understand that Aldi Supermarkets has a duty to clean the floor in order to avoid any potential
injury to consumers and they failed to meet required safety standards.
Conclusion 2
To conclude, Aldi Supermarket failed to meet the standard care since they did not clean the
floor which caused injury to Tamara.

COMMERCIAL LAW 3
Issue 3
The issue is whether actions of Aldi Supermarket caused injury to Tamara and whether the
injury is too remote.
Rule 3
The Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] 198 CLR 180 case provided that proximate relationship
signifies that actions of the defendant are connected with plaintiff which means plaintiff
suffers direct consequences in case defendant failed to fulfill his/her duty of care. In
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] 157 CLR 424 care, it was held that the damage
caused to the plaintiff must directly relate with the breach of the duty of defendant and it did
not include threats which are very remote or not predictable (Goudkamp, 2015).
Application 3
Tamara slipped on a puddle of melted ice-cream which was not cleaned by the staff of Aldi
Supermarket, and the corporation has a proximity relationship with customers, therefore, the
company is liable for the injury. Further, the injury was not too remote because Tamara
spends several months recovering and the cost of recovery was high as well.
Conclusion 3
To conclude, the actions of Aldi Supermarket caused injury to Tamara which was not too
remote.

COMMERCIAL LAW 4
Issue 4
The issue is whether Aldi Supermarkets can rely on the defence of contributory negligence of
Tamara.
Rule 4
Under pure contributory negligence, the court completely barred plaintiff from the recovery
of damages even if he/she has one percent contribution to the negligence. In Australia, the
count did not completely barred the plaintiff; instead, the amount of recovery is reduced to
the percent of plaintiff’s contribution (Goudkamp and Klar, 2015). The Pennington v Norris
[1956] HCA 26 case provides that contributory negligence cause due to plaintiff’s actions
due which he/she suffered damages. In Australia, the court decides the percentage of
plaintiff’s contributory negligence and reduces the recovery amount up to such percentage
(Stewart and Stuhmcke, 2009).
Application 4
In this case, the day was wet which means Tamara’s shoes were wet as well. Tamara was
running, and it is reasonable to understand that one person should not run in supermarket’s
aisle. Aldi Supermarkets also clean their floor every 45 minutes which means that they take
appropriate measure for the security of their customers. Therefore, Aldi Supermarkets can use
the defence of contributory negligence and the court can reduce the recover amount.
Conclusion 4
To conclude, Aldi Supermarkets can use the defence of contributory negligence.

COMMERCIAL LAW 5
Issue 5
The issue is whether Aldi Supermarket can rely on the voluntary assumption of risk defence.
Rule 5
Voluntary assumptions of risk is a defence against tort of negligence based on Latin maxims
called “Volenti non fit injuria” which translate that ‘no harm is done if one volunteer’. In
White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 case, the court held that plaintiff know about the risk,
and he accepted it, therefore, he cannot recover damages from the defendant. The three key
elements of this defence include voluntary, agreement and knowledge (Harpwood, 2009).
Application 5
Aldi Supermarkets cannot use this defence because there was no agreement (express or
implied) available and Tamara was not aware that ice-cream has melted on the floor.
Conclusion 5
To conclude, Aldi Supermarkets cannot use the defence of voluntary assumption of risk
because of lack of agreement and knowledge.

COMMERCIAL LAW 6
Issue 6
The issue is whether the principle of causation is applied in this case.
Rule 6
Causation is another element of negligence which provides that there must be a legal
connection between the action of defendant and negligence.
Application 6
In Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927 case, the court held that the doctor is held liable for
negligence because he did not provide proper knowledge to his patient which resulted in
causing him damages (Reynard and Marsh, 2009). Aldi Supermarket is liable for the security
of its customers, and they have to take proper security measure to protect the consumer from
any potential harm.
Conclusion 6
To conclude, the principle of causation applied in this case because Aldi Supermarket has a
proximity relationship with Tamara and it is their legal duty to protect their customers from
any potential harm.

COMMERCIAL LAW 7
References
Cornock, M. (2011) A legal commentary on negligence. Paediatric nursing, 23(1), p.21.
Goudkamp, J. and Klar, L. (2015) Apportionment of Damages for Contributory Negligence:
The Causal Potency Criterion. Alta. L. Rev., 53, p.849.
Goudkamp, J.0 (2015) A Revolution in Duty of Care?. Law Quarterly Review, pp. 519-525.
Harpwood, V.H. (2009) Modern Tort Law 7/e. Abingdon: Routledge.
Reynard, J. and Marsh, H. (2009) The development of consent from Bolam to Chester: what
you need to know and what your patients are entitled to know. BJU international, 103(11),
pp.1458-1461.
Sokol, D.K. (2012) Law, ethics, and the duty of care. BMJ: British Medical Journal
(Online), 345.
Steele, J. (2010) Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. England: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, P.E. and Stuhmcke, A.G. (2009) Australian principles of tort law. NSW: The
Federation Press.