Commercial Law: Aldi Supermarkets' Duty of Care - Negligence Case

This case study examines the legal responsibilities of Aldi Supermarkets regarding customer safety. It analyzes whether Aldi owed a duty of care to Tamara, a customer who slipped and was injured in the store. The assignment explores key legal concepts such as the 'neighbour test' for establishing a duty of care, the objective test for determining if that duty was breached, and the 'but for' test for causation. It also investigates defenses like contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. The case study concludes that Aldi owed a duty of care, breached it, and that the customer's injuries were a direct result of the breach, though the supermarket might be able to rely on the defense of contributory negligence. The assignment references several legal precedents to support its conclusions.

Commercial Law

Issue-1
Whether Aldi Supermarkets owes a duty of care towards Tamara?
Rule-1
A suit for recovery of damages for negligent actions could be filed against a party if the party
failed to maintain a standard of care. Firstly, the party against whom the suit is filed must
owe a duty of care. In order to identify whether a duty is owed by the party, the court relies
on the ‘neighbour test’ which was given in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562.
The test provides two elements based on which the duty of a person can be evaluated.
Firstly, the occurring of the damages must be foreseeable, and secondly, proximity must
exist between the relationships of parties (Barker et al., 2012). In case both of these
elements are present, then a person owes a duty of care towards another party.
Application-1
In the given case study, many people visit Aldi Supermarkets to purchase groceries and
other products. According to the neighbour test, it is foreseeable that customers could
suffer serious injury by slipping on the floor. A close relationship exists between the
company and its customers who purchase products in the store. Therefore, Aldi
Supermarkets owes a duty to ensure that it maintains a standard of care to keep the store
clean to prevent the occurring of an injury.
Conclusion-1
To conclude, a duty is owed by Aldi Supermarkets towards Tamara.
Page 1

Issue-2
Whether Aldi Supermarkets failed to maintain a standard of care by breaching its duty?
Rule-2
While determining whether a party breached his/his duty of care, the court relies on the
objective test as given in Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467 case. In this case, the
party suffered a loss due to a fire which burned his haystack. Many warnings were given to
the defendant to ensure a standard of care in order to avoid damages. The defendant
provided that as per his best judgement, the risk of fire was not significant. The court
provided that only reliance on the best judgement is not enough and the party is required to
take a standard of care which a reasonable person would in the particular situation
(Stephenson, 2012).
Application-2
As a duty of care is owed by Aldi Supermarkets, they are required to take reasonable care to
keep its customers safe. Although the company cleans the spillages in every 40 minutes,
however, it is a long time to check especially in aisles where the company keeps ice creams.
As per the objective test, the company failed to maintain a standard which is expected from
a reasonable person, thus, the duty is breached.
Conclusion-2
To conclude, the duty is violated by Aldi Supermarkets since reasonable care is not taken.
Page 2

Issue-3
Whether the negligent actions of Aldi Supermarkets caused injury to Tamara?
Rule-3
Causation is another key element which must be present while filing a suit for negligence. It
means that the injury suffered by a party must be caused directly due to the negligence of
another party. The court used ‘but for’ test to determine this element in Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 QB 428 case. The test evaluates that the claimant had not
suffered the injury, but for the failure of the defendant to maintain a standard of care the
damages occurred (Stephenson, 2012).
Application-3
Tamara had to pay $700,000 in the hospital fees and spend a few months there because her
back was broken. She suffered the injury due to slipping in the melted ice cream which was
not cleaned by the staff of Aldi Supermarkets. Tamara had not suffered the injury, but for
the failure of Aldi Supermarkets to maintain an appropriate standard, the injury occurred.
Conclusion-3
To conclude, the element of causation is present in the case because the injury of Tamara is
caused due to the negligence of Aldi Supermarkets.
Page 3

Issue-4
Whether the damages suffered by Tamara are too remote?
Rule-4
A party who suffered a loss due to the negligent actions of another has the right to recover
compensation if the injury is not too remote; the claim for damages which are too remote
cannot be filed (Barker et al., 2012). The Wagon Mound no 1 (1961) AC 388 case is a good
example to understand this element. In this case, oil leaked into Sydney Harbour due to the
negligence of crew members on a ship. Employees welding on a nearby wharf thought that
the oil is not flammable and continued their work. The oil caught fire which resulted in
damaging the wharf. The court rejected the claim for damages by providing that the
damages are too remote.
Application-4
Since a large number of customers visit Aldi Supermarkets, it is foreseeable that they could
slip on the floor due to spillages. It is foreseeable that if cleaning is not maintained by the
company, customers can suffer substantial loss. Thus, the injury suffered by Tamara is not
too remote based on which she can claim compensation from Aldi Supermarkets.
Conclusion-4
To conclude, the damages suffered by Tamara are not too remote.
Page 4

Issue-5
Whether Aldi Supermarkets can rely on the defence of contributory negligence?
Rule-5
Contributory negligence is a defence available in the suit for negligence based on which the
defendant can reduce the amount of compensation paid to the claimant or eliminate the
liability. As per the judgement of the case of Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949) 2 KB 291, the
first requirement of contributory negligence is that the claimant failed to necessary
measures to ensure his/her own safety (Goudkamp, 2015). The second requirement is that
due to the failure of the claimant, the damages were suffered.
Application-5
When Tamara suffered the injury, it was a wet day due to which her shoes had been wet.
She was also recklessly running the aisles to get to the chocolate. A standard of care was
breached by her because she did not focus on ensuring her safety by running in the store. If
Tamara had not been running, then she would have suffered fewer damages.
Conclusion-5
To conclude, Aldi Supermarkets can rely on the defence of contributory negligence to
reduce the amount of compensation paid to Tamara.
Page 5

Issue-6
Whether Aldi Supermarkets can rely on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk?
Rule-6
If a party gives his/her consent to accept the risk involved in an activity, then he/she cannot
demand damages from the defendant for negligence based on the defence of voluntary
assumption of risk. Certain elements must be fulfilled to rely on this defence. Firstly, the
consent must be given by the party without any external force. In Nettleship v Weston
(1971) 3 WLR 370 case, it was held that an agreement must be formed between parties
regarding acceptance of the risk which can be expressed or implied. Lastly, the party must
have complete knowledge about the risk (Greene, 2013).
Application-6
No consent was given by Tamara to Aldi Supermarkets and no agreement formed between
the parties, either expressed or implied. Tamara did not have the knowledge of the risk
before the incident.
Conclusion-6
To conclude, Aldi Supermarkets cannot rely on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.
Page 6

References
Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. and Trindade, F. (2012) The law of torts in Australia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 QB 428
Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949) 2 KB 291
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Goudkamp, J. (2015) Apportionment of Damages for Contributory Negligence: Appellate
Review, Relative Blameworthiness and Causal Potency. Edinburgh Law Review, 19(3),
pp.367-373.
Greene, B. (2013) Course Notes: Tort Law. Abingdon: Routledge.
Nettleship v Weston (1971) 3 WLR 370
Stephenson, G. (2012) Sourcebook on Tort Law 2/e. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467
Wagon Mound no 1 (1961) AC 388
Page 7