Business Law Case Study: Examining the Duty of Care and Negligence

This case study analyzes a legal dispute involving Zaluzna and Australia Safeway Supermarket, focusing on the concept of duty of care. The plaintiff, Zaluzna, sued the supermarket for negligence after slipping on a wet floor. The case examines whether the supermarket breached its duty of care to invitees and the general duty of care. The analysis references key legal precedents such as Donoghue v. Stevenson and Indermaur v. Dames, exploring the evolution of duty of care principles in occupier's liability. The courts ultimately rejected the traditional approach, emphasizing the application of general duty of care principles in commercial relationships, highlighting the responsibility of businesses to provide a safe environment for their customers. Desklib provides study tools for similar case studies.

Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Case Analysis
It can be stated that in this remarkable case it was held by the trial judge that it was in
appropriate to assess a duty of care following the principles of the significant Donoghue v.
Stevenson [1931] UKHL 3; (1932) AC 562, at p 580. In this case the judge had cited the
principles of the decision of the remarkable case House of Lords in London Graving Dock Co.
Ltd. v. Horton (1951) AC 737. The judge had directed his decision in reliance with the
exposition of duty of the invitor to the invitee as held in the case Willes J. in Indermaur v. Dames
(1866) LR 1 CP 274, at p 288.
The trial judge had held that the wet floor of the store did not constitute any hazard to the
customer as any person shopping on a rainy morning would expect the floor to be wet ordinarily
and it was also held by the trial judge that this no unusual danger. However, it was
acknowledged by his honor, that there could be possible grounds for different perspectives about
arriving at the conclusion. He even proceeded to consider the case with a view that there was an
unusual danger involved. It was held by his Honor that mopping procedures in order to reduce
the potential risk posed to any of the customers had not been pointed out to fall short of what was
considered to be reasonable. In this regard the honorable judge of the trail court held that the
defendant was in breach of duty of care. The action of the respondent was dismissed.
However, the respondent had appealed to the Full Court claiming that the judge of the
trial court was faulty in finding that duty of care was not owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The Full court however allowed the appeal by referring to the decision of the former cases
Hackshaw v. Shaw [1984] HCA 84; (1984) 155 CLR 614 and Papantonakis v. Australian
Telecommunications Commission [1985] HCA 3;

2BUSINESS LAW
It is to be mentioned that the counsel for the appellant put forward three propositions.
The first proposition as put forward by the counsel was that in this case the occupier and the
invitee shared the proximity of relevant relationship of proximity. Thus the duty of care which
was owed to the respondent by the appellant was a special duty as held in the case Indermaur v.
Dames. The next proposition was that the trial judge had considered only circumstances that
gave rise to a duty of care which was general in nature. The third proposition was that a general
duty of care had been owed by the appellant. It was held by the court after judging the
circumstances of the case that was no difference in the content of special duty and the general
duty. The Full court of appeal considered that these propositions must not prevail. The first
proposition however yielded as the Full Court had recognized this decision to be in reliance with
the decisions in the cases Hackshaw and Papantonakis.
It is to be mentioned that His Honour had kept aside the consideration of the question
whether occupier’s duty could also amount to the duty to take reasonable care. He further stated
that he did not regard the concurrent duties to be inconsistent with the duty to an invitee by an
occupier. It is to be stated that the notion of concurrent duties had been explained previously in
the case Public Transport Commission (N.S.W.) v. Perry (1977) 137 CLR 107.
It was held by his Honor that a land occupier has a general duty of care to all persons
who enter his land, whether as licensee, invitee or trespasser in the Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984)
155 CLR 614 case. It was also held that such duty of care is independent of special duty which
may arise in exceptional circumstances. Special duty of an occupier will not limit or restrict the
general burden of duty of care as held in the case Public Transport Commission (N.S.W.) v.
Perry (1977) 137 CLR 107. Thus it can be stated that the special duties of an occupier to any

3BUSINESS LAW
person who has lawfully entered his land are also examples of duty of care which arise under the
provisions of the general law.
Finally in regards to this case the judgment given rejected the traditional approach to
assess the liability of the occupier. The courts decided that the general provisions of duty of care
of the case Donoghue v Stevenson must be applied to all the cases. In this case the court assessed
that a commercial relationship existed between the parties which was reasonably foreseeable.
The courts also held that when people come to a shop and pay, the owners of the shop has the
liability to provide its customers a safe environment.

4BUSINESS LAW
Reference List:
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1931] UKHL 3; (1932) AC 562, at p 580
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951) AC 737
Indermaur v. Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274
Hackshaw v. Shaw [1984] HCA 84; (1984) 155 CLR 614
Papantonakis v. Australian Telecommunications Commission [1985] HCA 3;
Public Transport Commission (N.S.W.) v. Perry (1977) 137 CLR 107