Business Law Case Study: Negligence, Duty of Care, and Liability

This document presents a case study analyzing a negligence scenario. The case involves a consumer, Ben, who slips on wrapping paper in a supermarket and sustains injuries. The analysis focuses on whether Ben can successfully sue the supermarket for negligence, exploring the establishment of a duty of care, proximity, and reasonable foreseeability based on the precedent set by Donoghue v Stevenson. It also considers the defense of contributory negligence. The second part of the case assesses whether Ben can sue Sam, another person in the supermarket, for negligence, considering the concept of reasonable foreseeability as per Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt. The conclusion supports Ben's claim against the supermarket, with potential reductions in damages due to contributory negligence, but dismisses the claim against Sam due to the lack of reasonable foreseeability of harm.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Business Law Case Study
Negligence
31-Oct-17
(Student Details: )

NEGLIGENCE 2
Part 1
Issue
Whether Ben can make an action of negligence against the supermarket, or not?
Rule
Negligence can be best defined as a contravention of an owed duty of care, particularly
due to presence of foreseeability of loss/ harm. Where person caries on such a work, where there
are chances of his work harming the other party, such person owes a duty of care to the other
party, by carrying on the work in a manner, where such other party is not harmed (Martin &
Lancer, 2013). Through Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, it was established that a duty
of care is owed to the consumers by the manufacturers, as the acts of manufacturers can injure
the consumer, owing to proximity between them and reasonable foreseeability of losses. In case
the same takes place, the aggrieved party can apply for damages, for the harm or loss sustained
by them. These can be for physical, psychological or economic losses (Lunney & Oliphant,
2013).
Often in the cases of negligence, a defence of contributory negligence is cited, where the
party is deemed to contribute towards the injuries sustained by them. When a case of
contributory negligence is present, the aggrieved party gets a reduction in their awarded damages
(Latimer, 2012). Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM and KTP Nguyen Family Trust
[2016] NSW 2016 888 was a case where the damages were brought down by 10% owing to the
plaintiff running on wet tiles (Devitt, 2016).

NEGLIGENCE 3
Application
In the given case study, Ben was a consumer and as per the case of Donoghue v
Stevenson, the supermarket owed a duty of care to Ben, as there was proximity and reasonable
foreseeability. There was proximity as Ben came to shop in the supermarket, which made it a
duty of the supermarket to provide safe shopping experience to its customers. Also, it was
reasonably foreseeable that a person would slip on wrapping paper, as that is not something
which belongs on floor. As supermarket failed in doing so, they would be liable to compensate
Ben for his loss, owing to their negligence. This loss would be for his medical bills, and also for
his lost opportunity to swim.
However, Ben contributed to his injuries by not paying attention to the floor and being
busy on the phone. So, based on Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM and KTP
Nguyen Family Trust, the damages awarded to Ben would be brought down.
Conclusion
Hence, Ben can make an action of negligence against the supermarket in a successful
manner.
Part 2
Issue
Whether Ben can make an action of negligence against Sam, or not?

NEGLIGENCE 4
Rule
The risk of harm has to be taken as would a reasonable person would take, as per the case
of Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40. So, foreseeability of harm depends on the
view of a rational person (Jade, 2017).
Application
Sam and Ben were two people in the supermarket and they had proximity between them,
where actions of one could affect another. However, Sam or any other reasonable person, as per
Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt, could not have foreseen that by helping Ben, he would further be
injured.
Conclusion
Hence, the lack of reasonable foreseeability means that Ben cannot make an action of
negligence against Sam.

NEGLIGENCE 5
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
Jade. (2016). Wagon Mound (No. 1) -- "The Oil in the Wharf Case". Retrieved from:
https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/4919
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012 (31st ed.). Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia
Limited.
Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2013). Tort Law: Text and Materials (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J., & Lancer, D. (2013). AQA Law for AS Fifth Edition (5th ed.). Oxon: Hachette UK.