Duty of Care and Negligence in a Store

This document discusses the concept of duty of care and negligence in a store setting. It explores the elements of negligence, including the presence of a duty, the violation of that duty, and the resulting damages. It also examines defenses against negligence claims and the award of damages in such cases.

Introduction: after going through the rights that have been provided in this case, the questions
are related with negligence. For finding out the answers to the present questions, the rules related
with the duty of care have to be applied. It also needs to be seen what the circumstances are
where it can be stated that this duty has been breached. Another question is related with the
element of damages that can be awarded for the breach. In the same way, the defenses that have
been provided by the law against the allegations of the breach of this duty, have also been
discussed in the present task. The issue related with the award of damages also features in one of
the questions.
Question 1
Answer:
In this question, the issue arises if duty of care was present on part of Ravi regarding the incident
in which Archana suffered injuries after slipping on the floor.
According to the law of negligence, the duty to exercise care requires that a person should
exercise reasonable care in order to make sure that any harm is not caused to the other person.
This is also known as the 'neighbor principle'. This principle is based on the belief that in order to
live in a peaceful society, a responsibility is present on part of all persons that they should not
cause any injury to the persons around them. In case of the present question, it has to be seen if
the respondent had a duty of care towards the complainant. It can be said that this duty exists
when there is a legally recognized relationship present between the parties on account of which

an obligation is created for the defendant to act in a particular way. Generally an objective
standard is used by the course for deciding if there is a duty present in favor of the plaintiff
(Harpwood, 2003). Therefore, it will be concluded by the court that such a duty exists if the same
conclusion could be made by any reasonable person under the same circumstances. For this
purpose, there are other considerations present before the courts. These are related with the
nature of injury that has been caused to the plaintiff; the defendants control on the circumstances,
which resulted in the injury and plaintiff's vulnerability regarding such harm and also the nature
of relationship among the parties. Therefore there are certain relationships in which the
conclusion arises that a duty exists for the respondent. An example in this regard can be given of
the occupiers' liability. Therefore, there are certain factors that need to be considered for deciding
this issue. These include the vulnerability of the claimant, the fact that interest was not
insignificant at the time of injury caused to the plaintiff. A recent decision given in this regard
was that of Coles Supermarkets v Meneghello (2013).
Under these circumstances, the conclusion arises that Ravi owed a duty towards Archana and all
the persons present in the store as the manager. Therefore, when the test that has been discussed
above is applied to the facts of this case, the conclusion arises that Ravi owed a duty to Archana.
Question 2
Answer: the issue in the second question is if the duty of care has been violated by Ravi.
When the plaintiff has brought a claim based on negligence, it is not merely adequate that the
plaintiff had proved in the court regarding the presence of a duty on part of the defendant. As a
result, the plaintiff is also required to prove that the defendant had violated this duty. Such
violation of the duty occurs when the defendant had not used reasonable care, while

accomplishing its responsibilities. Therefore as compared to the issue related with if there was a
duty present on part of the defendant, the question if such duty has been violated, needs to be
considered as an issue of fact (Conaghan and Mansell, 1997). For the purpose of proving that the
violation of this duty has taken place, you mentioned elements need to be proved.
The person knew or ought to be aware of the danger. Sometimes this is referred to as reasonable
foreseeability.
There is present in the case was not insignificant
Precautions would have been taken by any other rational person
The Civil Liability Act had introduced the change in the legislation which provides that the risk
need not be insignificant. It is also worth mentioning that the factors that are going to be
evaluated by the court are based on the circumstances of every individual case. However,
generally in the codes considered the factors that would have been considered by any reasonable
person if the precautions were initially taken to prevent the risk (Lunney and Oliphant, 2000). As
mentioned in the statute. These considerations include the following:
The significance of harm;
The chances of the risk in the absence of reasonable care.
The burden of taking precautions that were necessary for avoiding the risk.
The advantage associated with the activity as a result of which such risk was caused.

In view of the above-mentioned discussion, in this question also it can be stated that Ravi had a
duty in favor of Archana as a visitor to the store. Therefore, Ravi is liable for breaching this
responsibility. As the manager of the store, it was the obligation of Ravi to get the mess created
immediately. However, he forgot about it and failed to get it cleaned. Therefore Archana
suffered serious injuries when she was exiting the store.
Question 3
Ans: when the claim made by the plaintiff is based on negligence, there is an obligation present
on part of the plaintiff which requires the plaintiff to prove in court that there was a legally
acknowledged injury. It is such injury is present in the form of a physical injury that has been
caused to the claimant onto the property of the claimant. Therefore in such cases it is not
adequate, if the claimant had proved in court that the respondent had failed to use reasonable
care that was required under the circumstances (Hedley, 2000). It also needs to be established
that as of such failure to exercise care, there was actual damage caused to the person to whom
the defendant had a duty. Hence when it has been established in the court that some negligence
was present on part of the respondent the court further proceeds to evaluate the damages suffered
by the claimant. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that usually the damages are measured on
lump-sum basis. As a result, the evaluation of the damages finalizes the rights available to the
wronged party (Rogers, 1999). The result is that the wronged party is not permitted to come
again to the court to evaluate the damages later on. Lump-sum damages are required to be
measured by summing up all the amounts that have been evaluated under different heads of
damages. In this context, the court may treat special damages and general damages separately.

For this purpose, the matters like loss of future earnings are included under the head of general
damages. Similarly pain and suffering,, disfigurement and the loss of enjoyment of life are also
covered by general damages. As a result of their distinct nature, the general damages cannot be
calculated exactly. As a result, the courts have to look at the different aspects of general
damages. Therefore the amount that is reasonable and fair for the parties under the circumstances
of each case has to be evaluated to provide compensation in the form of damages. As compared
to the situation, special damages are related with the out-of-pocket expenses made by the
claimant. For example, these images can include in medical expenses made by the claimant.
Other similar expenses include the loss of earning on trial day and other expenses that are
incidental to it.
Question 4
Ans: in order to successfully defend the claim that has been made by the plaintiff under the law
of negligence, it is tried to be established by the defendant that one of the basic elements of
negligence is not present in a particular case. As a result, proof may be introduced by the
respondent in the court which points out towards the fact that either the defendant did not have
any duty in favor of the plaintiff or that reasonable care has been used by the defendant in its
actions. Similarly, the defendant may try to establish that the damage suffered by the plaintiff
was not the result of the actions of the defendant (Stephenson, 2000). In this regard, there are
certain doctrines on which the defendant may rely for the purpose of limiting or completely
extinguishing its liability in case of the alleged negligence. For this purpose the three doctrines
that are commonly used by the defendants to limit their liability are contributory negligence,

comparative fault and resumption of risk by the plaintiff. Therefore, the liability of the defendant
may be limited partly if it can be established that the plaintiff was also negligent.
Hence, contributory negligence is a common defense that is available in cases related with
negligence. In order to avail his defense, it has to be proved that the actions of the claimant also
played a role in negligence. Therefore it can be stated that contributory negligence takes place
when the conduct of the complainant had also fallen below the required standard. Such conduct
should have cooperated with the negligence of the defendant had resulted in damage to the
claimant. This means that probably the harm suffered by the claimant could have been avoided if
the claimant himself was not negligent.
Question 5
Ans: according to the common law, a remedy has been provided by the award of damages. This
remedy is available in the form of monetary compensation. Such compensation has to be
awarded to the claimant for any loss suffered as a result of the negligence of the defendant.
However, in order to receive the remedy of damages, the claimant has to go to the court that
there has been a breach of the duty which resulted in a foreseeable loss to the claimant. The
composite images can be described as special and general damages (Jones, 2002). Under the
common law, exemplary damages and nominal damages are also awarded by the courts in some
cases.. Therefore in this case, it is possible that the court may award general damages to Archana
for the non-economic loss that has been suffered by her in the form of pain and suffering. At the
same time, the court may also or special damages in lieu of the special damages suffered by
Archana in the form of medical expenses or the loss of earning.

Conclusion: in this work, the principles of law of negligence, including the duty of care has to be
considered for providing the answers to the questions given. It has to be seen what elements are
necessary to be proved by the claimant for establishing that the defendant had a duty to the
claimant. In this case, it is clear that Ravi had a duty. This duty was present in case of all the
persons present in the store including Archana. However Ravi was negligent when he forgot to
get the mess cleared. Therefore, while leaving the store, Archana slipped and suffered serious
injuries.

References
Conaghan, J & Mansell, W 1997, The Wrongs of Tort, 2nd edn, London, Pluto.
Harpwood, V, 2003, Principles of Tort Law, 5th edn, London, Cavendish Publishing
Hedley, S, 2000, Butterworths Core Text, Tort, London, Butterworths.
Jones, M, 2002, Textbook on Torts, 8th edn, Oxford, OUP.
Lunney, M and Oliphant, K, 2000, Tort Law: Text and Materials, Oxford, OUP.
Rogers, WVH, 1999, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 15th edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell.
Stephenson, G, 2000, Sourcebook on Tort, 2nd edn, London, Cavendish Publishing.