Negligence and Duty of Care in Aldi Supermarket Case

This article discusses the negligence and duty of care in the Aldi Supermarket case. It covers the elements of duty, standard of care, causation, remoteness, contributory negligence, and voluntary assumption of risk.

Commercial Law
2018

ISSUE 1
Did a duty is owed by Aldi Supermarket to Tamara?
RULE 2
The party against whom a suit for recovery of compensation is filed must owe a duty
towards another party who suffered a loss to ensure that a standard of care is maintained
by him. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 case, the court provided that the defendant
owed a duty towards his customers to ensure that they did not get ill by the consuming the
products. The court established the duty by using the ‘neighbour test’ which provides two
elements (Luntz et al., 2017). Firstly, parties must have a close relationship with each other
in order to establish a duty to maintain a standard of care. Secondly, the risks must be
foreseeable and not too remote.
APPLICATION 1
Based on applying the principle of the ‘neighbour test’, a duty of owed by Aldi Supermarket
towards Tamara. Firstly, both parties have a close relationship since it is the responsibility of
the company to ensure that it customers are secured while they are inside the store.
Moreover, it is foreseeable that customers might slip in case the floor is not cleaned
regularly by Aldi Supermarket.
CONCLUSION 1
Based on the above observations, a duty is present in the given case which is owed by Aldi
Supermarket.
1 | P a g e

ISSUE 2
Did Aldi Supermarket violate the duty due to failure of ensuring a standard?
RULE 2
It is the obligations of a party who owes a duty to ensure that an appropriate standard of
care is maintained to avoid causing harm to another party. While determining whether a
duty is violated by the party or not, the court uses an objective test. The objective test is
considered as variable, and it is applied by the court based on the circumstances of a
particular case as given in Condon v Basi (1985) 1 WLR 866. The court provided that a party
is required to ensure that care is taken which a reasonable person would take for avoiding
any injury to third party (Kotecha, 2014).
APPLICATION 2
It is the duty of Aldi Supermarket to ensure that customers are protected while they are
shopping. The company has to take reasonable care to avoid the injury caused to the
customers. The corporation cleans its floors every 40 minutes, but it is not enough. Products
such as ice cream are easily melted; therefore, the company should reduce the time taken
to clean the floors.
CONCLUSION 2
Based on the observations, care is not maintained by Aldi Supermarket which violated its
duty.
2 | P a g e

ISSUE 3
Whether the element of causation present in this case?
RULE 3
The harm which is suffered by a party must be the direct result of the negligence of another
party which is referred to causation. In case the harm which is caused to a party is not
resulted of the negligence of another individual, the damages are not recoverable. For
determining this element, the ‘but for’ test is used which consider that fact that would a
party suffered the loss if the defendant had not acted negligently. The court provided in
Chester v Afshar (2004) 3 WLR 927 case the party is not required to prove that the
operations would not take place in case the advice was given by the surgeon that the
patient would suffer paralysis (Kotecha, 2014). Based on this test, it is determined by the
court that whether the injury had resulted even if the party was not acting negligently.
APPLICATION 3
The loss suffered by Tamara includes the hospital fees of $700,000 and the bed rest for few
months. As per the ‘but for’ test, this loss was caused because she slipped on the ice cream
in Aldi Supermarket because the store did not clean it within the appropriate time.
CONCLUSION 3
Based on the analysis, the loss caused to Tamara was resulted due to negligent actions of
Aldi Supermarket.
3 | P a g e

ISSUE 4
Whether the injury caused in this case is too remote?
RULE 4
While filing a suit for negligence, the party who suffered a loss is not liable to recover the
damages in case the injury is too remote. In the Wagon Mound No 1 (1961) AC 388 case, a
fire resulted causing substantial loss to a wharf. The reason for the fire was that oil was
leaked into the water due to negligence of crew members on a ship (Samuel, 2016). The
employees were welding on the wharf, and they did not think that the oil will be flammable.
The court provided that the defendant is not liable to pay for the damages since the loss is
too remote.
APPLICATION 4
In this case, the risk of slipping on the floor is foreseeable because many people visit the
stores daily. In case the cleaning is not done on time, then the risk of injury increases.
Tamara suffered the loss by slipping in the ice cream which was not cleaned by Aldi
Supermarket.
CONCLUSION 4
Based on the analysis, damages suffered by Tamara are not too remote.
4 | P a g e

ISSUE 5
Did the defence of contributory negligence apply in this case?
RULE 5
A party has the right to reduce the amount of damages which are paid in a suit for
negligence if the party who suffered the loss was negligent as well; this is referred as
contributory negligence. As per the judgement given in Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1955)
1 WLR 1217 case, this defence is available if the claimant has failed to take proper care in a
particular situation to ensure his/her safety (Samuel, 2013). Moreover, the failure of the
party to maintain a standard of care was contributed in causing the damages suffered. In
case of contributory negligence, the court reduces the amount of compensations paid to the
party as per his/her negligence.
APPLICATION 5
It was a wet day when Tamara visited the store to purchase chocolate. Moreover, she ran
carelessly to grab the last chocolate available in the store. These factors contributed to
causing the injury suffered by Tamara.
CONCLUSION 5
Based on the observations, a care was not taken by Tamara as she ran recklessly with wet
shoes; therefore, the amount of compensation can be reduced based on contributory
negligence.
5 | P a g e

ISSUE 6
Did the defence of voluntary assumption of risk applied in this case?
RULE 6
Volenti non fit injuria is another defence which is available in the suit for negligence which
provides that if a party accepts the risk, then he/she cannot demand compensation for the
loss suffered due to negligence which rose in the risk. Based on which the defendant has the
right to terminate his/her liability to pay compensation to the claimant for the loss suffered
due to the negligence. The parties are required to give their consent regarding the approval
of the risk involved in a particular scenario. An agreement is also necessary to be constituted
between parties regarding the approval of the risk. Moreover, the party who is given his/her
approval must have knowledge regarding the extent along with the nature of the risk as
given in Wooldridge v Summer & Anor (1963) 2 QB 43 case (Luntz et al., 2017).
APPLICATION 6
Tamara and Aldi Supermarket did not enter into an agreement in which Tamara accepts the
risk. Tamara has no knowledge about the risk, and she did not give her consent to accept it.
CONCLUSION 6
Based on the observations, the party cannot rely on this defence as no agreement is formed.
6 | P a g e

REFERENCES
Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1955) 1 WLR 1217
Chester v Afshar (2004) 3 WLR 927
Condon v Basi (1985) 1 WLR 866
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Kotecha, B. (2014) Q&A Torts. Abingdon: Routledge.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S. (2017) Torts:
cases and commentary. New York: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Samuel, G. (2013) Law of obligations & legal remedies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Samuel, G. (2016) Epistemology and method in law. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wagon Mound No 1 (1961) AC 388
Wooldridge v Summer & Anor (1963) 2 QB 43
7 | P a g e