Negligence in Supermarket Slip and Fall

This assignment examines a hypothetical case where a customer (Tamara) slips and falls in a supermarket (AD), sustaining injuries. Students must apply legal principles of negligence to determine AD's liability, considering factors like duty of care, breach, foreseeability, remoteness of loss, and contributory negligence. Relevant case law such as *Overseas Tankship* and *Davies v Swan Motor Co.* is used for analysis. The assignment concludes with advice on Tamara pursuing a legal claim against AD.

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
Commercial and Corporation Law
Negligence
(Student Details: )
17-Jan-18
Page 1

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
Introduction
Under the common law, negligence is deemed as a tort, which highlights that it is related
to a civil wrong undertaken. Negligence in itself shows the failure in undertaking the required
amount of care, as had to be done by the individual undertaking specific actions, which had the
possibility of injuring or hurting the other party. By showing that a case of negligence was
present, the injured party can attain damages from the tortious party (Gibson & Fraser, 2014).
This discussion is focused on establishing the same for Tamara.
Issue
Can a case of negligence be made against Aldi Supermarkets (AD) based on the given
facts?
Rule
The failure of upholding the duty of care, which causes an injury, or harm to another
person, results in a case of negligence being made. However, this is not as easy to establish in a
court and requires certain elements to be shown to be present. The very first one in this context is
showing that a duty of care was owed to the injured party (Greene, 2013). Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932] UKHL 100 is the most common case which is opted for showing the duty of care being
present. This case had the plaintiff drinking from the bottle manufactured by the defendant. Due
to the presence of dead snail in the bottle, the plaintiff got sick, and sued for negligence. This
was due to presence of proximity and foreseeability (Latimer, 2012).
Page 2

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
The next element is showing the breach of duty of care (Kelly, Hammer & Hendy, 2014).
In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467, the defendant was required to undertake such
actions which a reasonable individual would have taken. The failure in paying heed to the
warnings was deemed as a breach of duty of care by the court (E-Law Resources, 2017a). The
next requirement is to show that the loss was not too remote and was substantial. In Overseas
Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2, it was seen that the
absence of loss being foreseeable resulted in the damages not being recoverable (Latimer, 2012).
Once it can be shown before the court that a duty of care was owed and the same was
breached, which resulted in injuries, damages can be claimed. However, there are certain
instances where the awarded damages can be reduced or eliminated completely. One of such
instances is contributory negligence (Harvey & Marston, 2009). Where such situation is born
that the plaintiff themselves contribute to the harm caused to them, they are proportionally held
liable for the contributory negligence undertaken by them (Dongen, 2014). An example of this
was found in the matter of Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291. In this case, Davies had
been injured whilst he was standing on the side of the lorry. And this was deemed as his
contributory negligence (E-Law Resources, 2017b).
Particularly based on the given case study, the case of Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as
Trustee for VM & KTP Nguyen Family Trust [2016] NSW 2016 888 is of help. In this matter, the
plaintiff had slipped on the wet tiles of the supermarket and sued them for negligence. The
defendant failed in showing that they had undertaken the steps to keep the floor anti-slippage and
this made them liable for negligence. Though, the fast movement of the plaintiff on wet floor led
Page 3

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
to the court reducing the damages by 10% owing to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff
(Devitt, 2016).
Application
In order to show that a duty of care had been owed by AD to Tamara in this case, there is
a need to apply the leading matter of Donoghue v Stevenson. A duty of care was present owing to
the direct association between the supermarket and the consumer Tamara. The supermarket had
failed in taking the requisite duty of care as was required on their part, by failing to clear the
puddle of melted ice cream, which was the cause of slippage of Tamara. Vaughan v Menlove
dictates that AD was required to do what any other supermarket like them would have
undertaken. This meant AD had to clean up the puddle as soon as it had been caused. As a result
of this, Tamara was injured badly, which also required her to spend high sums on her recovery.
In this situation, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd dictates that
there was foreseeability of a person slipping on puddle of melted ice cream. There was no
remoteness of loss, as the general damages contributed to a sum more than $700,000. Based on
these factors, the conditions for making a case of negligence are satisfied by Tamara against AD.
A key point to be noticed here is that Tamara was running on wet surface to get the
product she wanted. This has to be seen as a contribution to her injuries as per the matter of
Davies v Swan Motor Co. Here, AD can also prove before the court that the surface of
supermarket was cleaned in every forty minute time frame. This could not be done in Raad v
KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM & KTP Nguyen Family Trust. This would mean that the
damages awarded to Tamara for her injuries, would be reduced to a higher percentage than 10%
as per the quoted case.
Page 4

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
Conclusion
Hence, a conclusion can be derived from this discussion that AD had been indulged in
negligence owing to the failure on their part, on keeping the duty of care, which caused Tamara’s
injuries. However, owing to Tamara running over wet surface, she indulged in contributory
negligence. And this would mean that the damages awarded to her would be brought down in
proportion to her contributory negligence.
Thus, it is advised to her to go forward with making a case of negligence against AD
since she would still be able to get good amount of damages for the undertaken negligence by
AD.
Page 5

Commercial and Corporation Law
January 17, 2018
References
Devitt, S. (2016). A slip up - shopping centre liable for slip and fall on wet tiles. Retrieved from:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bdcef724-3c2e-482d-9d74-
540bc1a44d6c
Dongen, E.V. (2014). Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston:
Brill Nijhoff.
E-Law Resources. (2017a). Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467. Retrieved from:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Vaughan-v-Menlove.php
E-Law Resources. (2017b). Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291 Court of Appeal.
Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Davies-v-Swan-Motor-Co.php
Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law 2014 (8th ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Education
Australia.
Greene, B. (2013). Course Notes: Tort Law. Oxon: Routledge.
Harvey, B., & Marston, J. (2009). Cases and Commentary on Tort (6th ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kelly, D., Hammer, R., & Hendy, J. (2014). Business Law (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012 (31st ed.). Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia
Limited.
Page 6