Commercial Law Assignment: Aldi Supermarket and Tort Law

This case study analyzes a commercial law scenario involving Aldi Supermarket and a customer, Tamara, who slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream, resulting in a broken back. The assignment applies the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to examine the legal principles of duty of care, negligence, causation, and the defense of voluntary assumption of risk. The analysis explores whether Aldi had a duty of care, if they breached the standard of care, the causation of the injury, and if the supermarket could use the defense of voluntary assumption of risk, considering Tamara's actions. Relevant legal cases such as Donahue v Stevenson and Chapman v Hearse are referenced to support the arguments. The conclusion suggests that Aldi Supermarket owed a duty of care, potentially breached it, and could possibly claim defense of voluntary assumption of risk.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
Commercial Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
Table of Contents
IRAC 1.............................................................................................................................................3
Issue.............................................................................................................................................3
Rules............................................................................................................................................3
Application..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4
IRAC 2.............................................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rules............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
IRAC 3.............................................................................................................................................5
Issue.............................................................................................................................................5
Rules............................................................................................................................................5
Application..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................6
IRAC 4.............................................................................................................................................6
Issue.............................................................................................................................................6
Rules............................................................................................................................................6
Application..................................................................................................................................7

2COMMERCIAL LAW
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................7
Reference.........................................................................................................................................8

3COMMERCIAL LAW
IRAC 1
Issue
According to the case study, the issue has been found that whether, Aldi Supermarket is
has owned the duty of care towards their customer or not?
Rules
According to the Tort law, the term duty of care is defined the legal obligation which is
imposed and recognized the legal duty to take care. It is defined the standard of reasonable care
where defendant will became liable if such care has been breached. In this matter, the defendant
will pay the damages to the plaintiff if any injury or loss has been caused due to such breach.
Therefore, it is necessary that the plaintiff must establish the facts that the defendant has owned a
duty of care. In one of the significant cases of negligence Donahue v Stevenson (1932) where the
neighbor test has been applied for identify the presence of duty of care where personal injury or
property has been damaged. It is necessary that the defendant must act with reasonably
foreseeable which caused injury or damage of the plaintiff. It is a limitation on negligence where
a person should suffered harm due to the act of reasonable foreseeability (Stickley 2016).
Application
According to the case facts, Tamara has been slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream in
the Aldi Supermarket and broke her back. Therefore, as per the terms of negligence, Aldi
Supermarket has owned the duty of care towards Tamara, because she was the customer of the
shop. The injury has caused in the shop premises and it is the duty of the supermarket to take
care of their customers.

4COMMERCIAL LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that Aldi Supermarket has owned a duty of care towards
Tamara.
IRAC 2
Issue
According to the case study, the issue has been found that whether the standard of care
has been breached by Aldi Supermarket and caused injury to Tamara.
Rules
The standard of care is defined the form of caution and degree of prudence which is
occurred by an individual who is owned a duty of care. Therefore, when the defendant has
owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff, the standard of care should not breach. While it is
necessary for the plaintiff to establish the facts to prove that a duty of care has been breached.
The defendant has owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff. The defendant has caused the
breach. Due to the breach of standard of care, the plaintiff has suffered damage, loss, or injury.
According to the tort law, breach of duty occurs when a person fails to satisfy the terms of the
reasonable care towards another person [Chapman v Hearse (1961)]. In the Donahue v
Stevenson (1932) case, the defendant has found to breach his standard of care, which caused
physical injury to the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care. The
Civil Liability Act provides the rewards for the damages, which has caused due to the breach of
standard duty of care (Stickley 2016).

5COMMERCIAL LAW
Application
According to the case study, the standard of care is applicable for the Aldi Supermarket
because it is the duty of the shop authority that they will take reasonable care towards their
consumers. Aldi Supermarket’s staff member inspects the supermarket aisles, cleans up spillages
every 40 minutes, though Tamara has slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream, and broke her
back. Therefore, the terms of standard of care have failed to apply in this case and the defendant
has breached the duty of care.
Conclusion
As per the fact of the case, it can be concluded that Aldi Supermarket has breached the
duty of care and caused injury to Tamara.
IRAC 3
Issue
According to the case study, whether the Tamara can take legal actions against Aldi
Supermarket or not for the damages she has been faced.
Rules
In this case study, the issue is related with the causation under the Tort Law. It is
necessary to prove the grounds of the causation and remoteness for the breach of the duty of
care. The court will not grant liability to the defendant unless the injury or damage was the direct
result of the breach of the duty of care. The defendant has caused the act of causation due to the
negligent act. The remoteness of the damage is found when the losses incurred by the negligent
act. This means that the damage can occurred through a direct consequence of the negligent act,

6COMMERCIAL LAW
which have also been reasonably forseeable (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock &
Engineering Company Limited (New South Wales) [1961]) (Stickley 2016).
Application
In this case study, Tamara’s back has been broken due to the negligence act by Aldi
Supermarket. Now, is necessary to found the causes of the causation of the breach of duty of
care. Here, it is necessary to mention that Tamar was running very fast to collect the last
chocolate bar left for sale. Now, the causation of the damage is found that both parties are liable
for the damage. The remoteness of the damage is the injury of neck, which is the result to
recover for several months in hospital with general damages alone in excess of $700,000.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that Tamara can take legal actions against Aldi
Supermarket and claim for damages.
IRAC 4
Issue
According to the case study, can Aldi Supermarket use the defense of voluntary
assumption of risk?
Rules
Assumption of risk is a form of defense in the tort law which helps to reduce plaintiff’s
right to recovery against a negligence if the defendant can able to explain that the plaintiff acted
with voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks of the activity. It is inherent to the dangerous
activity where that person was participating at the time of his or her injury. Therefore, the

7COMMERCIAL LAW
defendant can ask for the defense by explaining that the plaintiff was fully comprehended the
risk of injury, which can be materialized and freely chose to accept it (Stickley 2016). It has
defined the volenti non fit injuria which means no wrong is done to one who consents. Therefore,
when a person was volunteered, there is no harm is done. It is required to explain that the risk
should be voluntary occurred after having the knowledge about the nature and extent of risk
(Rakich v Bounce Australia Pty Ltd [2016]).
Application
According to the case study, it can be stated that Tamara was running so fast to grab the
last chocolate bar, which was left for sale. Tamara runs even faster for collect the chocolate bar.
However, unfortunately she slipped on a puddle of melted ice cream and broke her back.
Therefore, here, Aldi Supermarket can use the defense of assumption of risks by stating that
Tamara has knowledge that by running so fast can causes harm to her. According to the cleaning
policy of the supermarket, the staff member inspects the supermarket aisle and cleans up any
spillages every 40 minutes. Therefore, Tamara is equally liable for the damages.
Conclusion
According to the case study, it can be concluded that Aldi Supermarket can asked for
defense by using voluntarily assumption of risk.

8COMMERCIAL LAW
Reference
Cane, P., 2017. Key Ideas in Tort Law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Donahue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited (New
South Wales) [1961] UKPC 2
Rakich v Bounce Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 289
Stickley, A.P., 2016. Australian Torts Law. LexisNexis Butterworths.