Negligence Claim: Analyzing Legal Elements and Supermarket Defenses

This assignment delves into the legal elements necessary for a negligence claim, as outlined by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). It examines the key components, including duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and damages, and applies them to a scenario involving a customer's injury in a supermarket. The analysis explores whether the supermarket breached its duty of care, considering its cleaning policies and the customer's actions. It also discusses potential defenses the supermarket could use, such as demonstrating adherence to cleaning protocols and arguing contributory negligence. The assignment emphasizes that the customer must satisfy all legal requirements to prove negligence, and the manager's apology does not constitute an admission of liability. References to relevant legal sources are included.

Fundamentals of Law
1

Legal elements required for a claim in negligence
According to the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), there are five elements of negligence which
are (State of Queensland , 2016):
 Duty - The outcome of negligence rely on offender owing duty towards complainant,
which rises when legal relationship is established between the offender and the
complainant, which requires the offender to act or not to act in a specific manner with
due care or diligence towards complainant.
 Breach of duty - It must be verified that the offender has breached duty owed
towards the complainant.
 Cause in Fact - The complainant must prove that the activities of offender have been
the authentic cause behind the injury caused to the complainant (Thomson Reuters,
2019).
 Proximate Cause - It reveals the possibility of responsibility of the offender in the
matter raised of negligence. However, offender can be held responsible only for such
harms that have been predicted by their actions or are obvious risks (Magna Carta
Institute, 2018).
 Damages - The complainant needs to prove occurrence of harm, generally in the form
of physical injury in-person or to the property. Even if offender fails to perform with
reasonable care, it is essential that the failure must have resulted in actual damages to
the complainant to whom the offender owed duty to care. It is also essential for the
complainant to bring the case of claim within appropriate time period after the
negligence occurred (Thomson Reuters, 2019).
So, if Kyle wants to claim for negligence against supermarket, he/she should claim within
appropriate time period and his/her claim must suffice within the legal requirements for claim
in negligence.
2

Applying the elements to the scenario above, if Kyle wants to take an action in
negligence against the supermarket, the legal elements required for claim for negligence
must be satisfied. In this case, supermarket owed a duty of care towards Kyle but it cannot be
proved by Kyle that they have breached the duty of care because as per the cleaning policy of
the store, the floor is to be checked every hour (Thomson Reuters, 2019). It will also be
essential for Kyle to prove that due to the negligence of staff of supermarket, he got injured.
The manager of the supermarket has told about the policy of the supermarket that the floor is
checked after every hour and it is before 15 minutes that floor has been checked. The
supermarket could be held responsible only for such harms that could have been foreseen by
their actions but the cleaning has been checked just before 15 minutes and it was the
distraction of Kyle himself that he did not noticed that a piece of grape dropped on the floor
(Australian Law Reform Commission, 2019). On the contrary, Kyle could be held
responsible for contributory negligence due to his own actions as in case of Thistle Co of
Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz [2018] QCA 006 (Queensland Judgments, 2018). In this case also,
Mr. Bretz tripped due to his own negligence also (Magna Carta Institute, 2018). As all the
legal elements essential to prove negligence are not satisfied, the liability of the supermarket
could not be proved.
Possible defence the supermarket can use against a claim in negligence by Kyle
Against the claim in negligence by Kyle, the possible defence that could be selected by the
supermarket is that they can show their cleaning policy according to which, there is provision
to check cleaning after every one hour. Through time displayed on the time-table for
checking the cleanliness, the manager can prove their innocence in the matter. Instead, Kyle
was not doing his job with concentration and was busy in browsing something on phone and
due to this distraction; Kyle fell down and broke his hand. As in Thistle Co of Australia Pty
Ltd v Bretz [2018]QCA 006, the defendants had breached duty of care by being aware of a
3

reasonably foreseeable risk and had not done anything to avoid it which was the proof of their
negligence (Level 27 Chambers, 2018). But here in this case, the defendants are performing
their duties with full dedication and have evidences of that as well. This defence can be used
by the supermarket to prove their innocence in the matter. Moreover, Kyle has the onus to
prove the negligence of defendants and if he can prove that the supermarket has negligently
acted in a manner that they had not performed their duty to care towards their customers, the
negligence by the supermarket could be proved (Magna Carta Institute, 2018).
Kyle should not rely on the apology by the supermarket manager as an admission of
liability by the supermarket because the manager apologized as a matter of concern and his
responsibility to show concern on behalf of the store. It does not show his admission of
liability towards Kyle because he apologized and stated that as per the cleaning policy of the
supermarket, it was the duty of a store member to check the floors every hour and he
confirmed that a staff member had checked the floor just before 15 minutes of Kyle falling on
the floor (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2019). He came there to apologize to Kyle as
one of his customers as well as to inform him about the cleaning policy of the store.
Furthermore, in order to prove negligence, there is no value of statements by anybody but to
satisfy the legal elements essential for a claim in negligence against supermarket. Section 9 of
the Civil Liability Act states that a person could not be held responsible for breaching a duty
to take precautions against risk of harm unless the risk has been reasonably predictable and
was not insignificant and in such circumstances, reasonable person would have taken
precautions (Magna Carta Institute, 2018). It proves that supermarket could not be held liable
for injury to Kyle just because the manager apologized to him for the injury. That is why;
Kyle should not rely on the apology of the supermarket manager as the liability of the store
for his injury. Even if he fell down due to his own negligence, it is their duty to provide first-
4

aid or to ask if he needs help. The store manager has only performed his duty and it is not
liability for injury to Kyle.
References
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2019. What is a tort? [Online] Available at:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-
commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/17-immunity-from-civil-liability/what-is-a-tort/
[Accessed 1 October 2019].
Level 27 Chambers, 2018. The Thistle Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz [2018] QCA 6.
[Online] Available at: https://www.level27chambers.com.au/cases/thistle-company-australia-
pty-ltd-v-bretz-2018-qca-6/ [Accessed 01 October 2019].
Magna Carta Institute, 2018. Case Note – QLD – Negligence and Risk. [Online] Available at:
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/negligence-and-risk-qld/ [Accessed 1 October 2019].
Queensland Judgments, 2018. The Thistle Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz. [Online]
Available at: https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/306152 [Accessed 01
October 2019].
State of Queensland , 2016. Civil Liability Act 2003. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/2016-07-01/act-2003-016 [Accessed 01
October 2019].
Thomson Reuters, 2019. Elements of a Negligence Case. [Online] Available at:
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html [Accessed
1 October 2019].
5

6