Case Study Analysis: Negligence in Commercial Law (BUS107)

This case study analyzes a scenario where Tamara, a chocolate addict, sues Aldi Supermarkets for negligence after she slips on a puddle of melted ice cream and breaks her back. The analysis identifies the key issue of whether Aldi is liable for negligence, exploring the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and remoteness of damage, referencing relevant legal precedents like Donoghue v Stevenson and Wagon Mound No. 2. The case applies these principles to the facts, determining that Aldi had a duty of care which was breached by failing to clean up the spillage. However, the analysis also considers the defense of contributory negligence, as Tamara was running. Ultimately, the conclusion suggests Tamara can sue Aldi for negligence and claim compensation, potentially including damages for her injury, referencing Imbree v McNeilly.

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Issue:
The issue in this case study is whether Tamara can succeed if she sues Aldi Supermarkets
for negligence.
Rules:
In negligence tort, negligence is said to occur when there is a failure to use proper and
reasonable care expected to be taken in such situations (Luntz et al. 2017). In order to sue anyone
for negligence, the elements of negligence have to be proved as given in the case of Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In this case, it is held that to succeed in a negligence claim, the
claimant needs to prove, that the defendant has a duty of care, the defendant has violated such
duty, the violation of such duty caused damage and the damage is reasonably foreseeable and not
very remote. In order to prove that the defendant is liable for the injury or loss, such loss or
injury must be actually caused by the negligent act and it must not be very remote. This is
provided in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd or the
Wagon Mound No. 2 [1967] 1 AC 617 case where it is held that the damage or loss shall not
only be the direct result of the negligence but also reasonably foreseen.
Duty of care means the situations and relations recognized by the law giving rise to a
duty to take care legally. A defendant if failed to exercise such duty of care for which the
claimant suffered a loss or injury, then the defendant is liable under the tort of negligence. The
presence of the duty of care of the defendant to the claimant for personal injury was actually
given in the decision of Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. He laid down the
neighbor test to determine whether the defendant has a duty of care.

2CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The neighbor test consists of two necessities; the reasonable foreseeability of the harm
caused and the presence of proximity relation. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is used as a
precedent in the case of negligence. Another landmark case that elaborates the concept of duty of
care is the Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62, [1936] AC 85; [1935]
UKPCHCA 1, (1935) 54 CLR 49 (21 October 1935).
The next condition that the claimant must prove is the breach of duty by the defendant
(Goudkamp 2017). The defendant must prove that he had caused the breach of his duty towards
the plaintiff. An objective is used to find out that the defendant has caused the breach of his duty
as found in Vaughan v Menlove [1837] 3 Bing. N.C. 467.
The next condition of causation is usually determined by applying the ‘but for’ test as
observed in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. To prove this
criterion, the claimant must prove that the damage or injury suffered by him was caused by the
acts of the defendant. In most of the cases, the ‘but for’ test is applied to resolve the doubt such
that ‘but for’ the acts of the defendant, whether the claimant would have suffered the loss. If the
answer is affirmative, the defendant is not held responsible otherwise the defendant is held liable.
This ‘but for’ test was also observed in the case of Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927.
The last criterion to be proved by the claimant is the remoteness of the damage as
observed in the Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 which says that the defendant can be held
liable only for the loss, injury or damage that can be foreseen by a reasonable person (Zulhuda
2015). When the loss or injury is foreseeable, then the defendant is responsible for total loss or
injury of the plaintiff, even if it is found that the cause was more than expectation. This concept

3CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
of remoteness was tested and proved in the case of Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52, 155 CLR
549.
When all these criteria are fulfilled, then the defendant can be held liable for the tort of
negligence and the claimant can succeed against him to claim for the damages caused to him.
However, the defendant can also make defences to save himself from the claims of the
plaintiff. One of the defences against the tort of negligence is the contributory negligence
(Goudkamp and Nolan 2019). Under the ambit of common law, it acts as a total defence against
the claims of the victim. In Australia, the defence of contributory negligence can be availed of if
the own negligence of the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries as observed in the case of
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286. Another important case in this regard was Pennington v
Norris [1956] HCA 26 where it is shown that in order to claim the defence, the defendant must
show that the claimant did not take adequate care to ensure his own safety as found in Davies v
Swan Motor co [1949] 2 KB 291 and the failure of taking care has contributed to the damage
suffered by him as seen in Capps v Miller [1989] 1 WLR 839.
Application:
In this case, it is seen that Tamara is a chocolate addict. The Aldi Supermarkets is the
only retailer that sells her favourite brand of chocolate. Tamara almost goes to the Supermarket
to buy her favourite chocolate. Thus it is a regular affair of Tamara visiting the supermarket.
On the day of incidence, that is on a particular wet Saturday morning in January, Tamara
was walking down the confectionary aisle of the Supermarket and finds that at the extreme end
of the aisle only a single chocolate bar was left. As it was the last bar available, she does not miss
it. So she started running to the chocolate bar. When she found another shopper approaching

4CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
towards it, she began to run even faster. However when she reached there to grab the chocolate
bar, she slipped on the puddle of melted ice cream and broke her back.
The Supermarket had a duty to take care of his customers visiting their shop. This duty
includes cleaning of their premises. Thus the Supermarket had a duty to take care of Tamara. But
it breached it as it did not clean up the ice cream spillage on the floor of the super market.
Though, it claimed that a staff member is assigned to inspect the super market aisles and cleans
up spillages every 40 minutes but the staff failed to clean it which resulted into the incident. Thus
Super market was responsible for the act of his staff for not cleaning up the spillage.
As the staff did not clean it, Tamara slipped on it and broke his back. The immediate
result of the causation is the breakage of back of Tamara and the accident was not remote. Thus
the Super market could be held liable for the injury suffered by Tamara.
However, the super market can claim that the there was contributory negligence on the
part of Tamara as she was running and unable to control her speed which made her slip on the
melted ice cream. However, this could not be regarded as the strong defence as the main cause of
her injury and loss was for slipping on ice cream spillage and not for running fast.
Conclusion:
Thus Tamara can sue Super market for tort of negligence and claim for the compensation
of the losses and injury she suffered accordingly as per the case of Imbree v McNeilly. She could
even claim for 700000 $ provided it is not too remote to her injury.

5CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
References:
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
Capps v Miller [1989] 1 WLR 839
Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927
Davies v Swan Motor co [1949] 2 KB 291
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286
Goudkamp, J. and Nolan, D., 2019. Contributory Negligence in the Twenty-First Century.
Oxford University Press.
Goudkamp, J., 2017. Breach of Duty: A Disappearing Element of the Action in Negligence?. The
Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), pp.480-483
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62, [1936] AC 85; [1935] UKPCHCA 1, (1935)
54 CLR 49 (21 October 1935)
Imbree v McNeilly. [2008] HCA 40
Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52, 155 CLR 549
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S., 2017. Torts:
cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd or the Wagon Mound No. 2
[1967] 1 AC 617

6CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26
Vaughan v Menlove [1837] 3 Bing. N.C. 467
Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388
Zulhuda, S., 2015. Negligence: causation & remoteness of damage