Negligence Law: Tamara's Case against Aldi Supermarket

1
Contents
Solution.......................................................................................................................................................2
Issue........................................................................................................................................................2
Law..........................................................................................................................................................2
Application of law...................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................4
Reference List.............................................................................................................................................5

2
Solution
Issue
i. Whether Tamara can sue the Aldi supermarket for the loss that is sustained by her?
ii. Whether Aldi super market can rely any of the defenses under the law of negligence?
Law
There are several laws that are considered to be part of the civil law of any country and one such
law that deals is with the concept of negligence.
The most promising case that has established the concept of negligence fully was Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] wherein all the basic elements that are needed for the presence of negligence
which must be cater by any aggrieved party in order to hold the defendant negligent in his acts or
omissions are established. Thus, the main elements to prove negligence are: (Latimer, 2012)
i. Duty of care - The duty of care is an element which imposes an obligation on the part
of the defendant. The obligation signifies that whenever the defendant is carrying out
any of his actions or is omitting any action, then, he must make sure that no person
must suffer any kind of damage or injury because of such act or omissions. But, it is
not always that the defendant is casted with the duty of care against the person. There
are two main sub elements which must be proved which make a defendant under an
obligation to provide duty of care against the plaintiff.
a. That the plaintiff must be the neighbor of the defendant. This neighborhood
principle is established in the leading case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor
[2014] the principle submits that the plaintiff is considered to be the neighbor of
the defendant only when the acts and the omissions that are carried out by the
defendants will affect the plaintiff directly without any supervening event. In such
cases the plaintiff is considered to be the neighbor of the defendant and the
defendant must be protective against his neighbors.
b. That the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. There is no
responsibility that can be enshrined on the defendant unless the plaintiff cannot be
reasonably by the defendant. It is necessary that there must be forseeability of the
plaintiff (Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman - [1985]).
ii. Breach – when the duty is not complied with, then, the duty is considered to be
violated and it must be construed as breach. But, the non compliance of the duty in
itself is not considered to be breach. The duty is said to be violated provided the basic
level of care that is needed in any given situation is not met. When the level of care
fall short of the expected level of care that is desired in the given situation, then, the
duty of care is said to be violated by the defendant (San Sebastian Pty Ltd v. Minister
Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1987).