This case study analyzes a commercial law case involving negligence, specifically focusing on a scenario where a customer, Tamara, slipped and injured herself in Aldi Supermarkets due to a wet floor. The analysis employs the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to dissect the key legal aspects. The case explores whether Aldi owed Tamara a duty of care, referencing the precedent set by Donoghue v Stevenson. It examines if Aldi breached this duty by failing to maintain a safe environment, considering standards of care established in cases like Paris v Stepney Borough Council. Further, it assesses the remoteness of the injuries sustained by Tamara, applying the principles from Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt and Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, as well as the 'but for' test from Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital. Finally, the case considers the potential for contributory negligence on Tamara's part, with reference to Hamilton v Duncan and Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd, and how this might affect the damages awarded. The conclusion of the case is that Aldi Supermarkets can use contributory negligence against Tamara, as she rushed towards the isle on seeing the other consumer, which would result in damages being reduced accordingly.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
