Law of Tort Question Answer 2022

Law of Torts 1
LAW OF TORT
Author Name(s)
Class (course)
Tutor (Professor)
University (School)
The City and State
Date

Law of Torts 2
Introduction.
A tort is an act or omission that amounts to a civil wrong other than a breach of a contract
whose counteraction in common law is usually compensation to the suffered party in civilian
courts. It mainly deals with duties of care owed to persons in various situations, and liability for
negligence and other civil wrongs imposed by law. The law of torts primarily focuses on
providing remedies to the plaintiff who has suffered harm, loss, or violation of their rights.
However, it is fundamental for the plaintiff to prove that they were owed a duty of care by the
defendant, and the tort resulted to injury or damage. Courts will impose liability on the
defendant, only if they intentionally or negligently fail to act in a certain way.
Question 1.
Advise Tamara on if she was owed a duty of care by Aldi supermarket.
Issue.
Was Tamara owed a duty of care by Aldi supermarket?
Rule.
Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) case can be used to determine whether Aldi
supermarket owed Tamara a duty of care. The case established three tests to determine if the care
of duty is owed to the plaintiff (Chamberlain, 2019). The first test required that for duty of care
to exist the injury suffered could be predicted. The second test; duty of care is to be imposed if
there is already an existing relation between the plaintiff and defendant. Thirdly, if it is fair in all
circumstances, to impose a duty of care and is in the public intrest. If a case passes the three
tests, a duty of care is owed and the plaintiff is to be compensated on damages suffered.
Application.

Law of Torts 3
The Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) case established that, a duty of care is owed if an
injury or harm to a neighbor is foreseeable(Plunkett, 2018). In the case of Tamara, Aldi
supermarket had foreseen the damages that could result from spillages. Additionally, a duty of
care is owed if there is an existing relation between the defendant and the plaintiff as established
in the Home office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) case (Goold & Maslen, 2015). In this case, Tamara
was a frequent customer to Aldi supermarket since she went to the supermarket every day. Hence
there was a relationship of proximity between Tamara and Aldi supermarket.
Conclusion.
Tamara was owed a duty of care by Aldi supermarket.
Question 2.
Advice Tamara if Aldi supermarket had breached its duty of care.
Issue.
Did Aldi supermarket breach the duty of care they owed to Tamara?
Rule.
For Tamara to be successful in her suit against Aldi supermarket, she must attest that Aldi
supermarket had breached the duty of care that she was owed and hence she suffered injuries.
Additionally, she must show without doubt that Aldi supermarket did not satisfy the standard of
care and that the injury was reasonably foreseeable.
Application.
Aldi supermarket cleaned any spillages after every forty minutes. Hence, they had
foreseen that there would be cases of harm that may be brought by spillages in between the