BUS107 Commercial Law and Aldi Supermarkets

Facts

The case discusses about Aldi Supermarkets which is the only retail shop selling a particular brand of chocolate bar that Tamara likes very much and is highly addicted. Tamara visits Aldi Supermarkets on daily basis to purchase her preferred chocolate bar but every day she receives nothing as the chocolate bar is not available because the chocolate bar gets sold out at the store. And due to this, Tamara use to get very upset. Once she visits the Aldi Supermarket store on a wet Saturday morning in the month of January. That day she saw from the very far end of the lane that her favorite chocolate was there and it was the last piece left for sale. As she liked that chocolate very much and was addicted to that chocolate so she ran to grab that last piece of chocolate bar. But, it was not just Tamara who wanted that chocolate there was one more purchaser present at the end of the lane who was moving towards that last chocolate bar. After seeing this, Tamara started running much faster to purchase that last piece towards the shop. But a mishap took place, as she was running at the end of the shop she slipped over some of the melted ice cream on the floor of the shop and injured her back very badly. Due to this, she had to remain admitted in the hospital for several months to recover from this damage. More than $700,000 were spent on her hospital expenses. But, the Aldi Supermarket was able to prove that according to its rules a staff member examines the passage area of the supermarket after every 40 minutes to conduct the cleaning process. 

Tamara wants to litigate Aldi Supermarkets for negligence and for the loss she had to suffer due to this negligence.

Relevant Law and Applicability.

The issue of negligence in Australia is seen as a lawful act that can be undertaken by an individual to whom an act that is wrongful has been done by a person who is the offender who was supposed to offer a reasonable duty of care (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2017).

The offender's accountability towards this rises when there has been made recognition of the duty to take care and it is also being proved that due to a breach of expected care there has been significant damage done to the complainant. There are 3 essentials namely breach of standard of care, damage suffered due to that breach, and foreseeable result of breach of duty needs to be proved by the complainant, the person who has suffered, under the tort of negligence. This is necessary to establish a claim (Rajibjhassan, 2012).

It is felt that it is the duty of the offender to take care that is required and which is expected of him/her during the act of negligence made by him to the affected party that is the complainant. And it is also required from the complainant the main pain bearer that he proves that the damages caused to her are  a result of negligence on the part of the offender (Australian Law Reform Commision, 2017).

In the case of Tamara, she has the right to litigate Aldi Supermarket for the negligence that has been undertaken by their staff. No doubt it is true that there was expected a duty of reasonable care on the part of Aldi Supermarkets which was maintaining cleanliness in order to prevent such cases of accidents as happened with Tamara. Though the staff of the supermarket needs to check the aisle of the supermarket after every 40 minutes to inspect the aisle and maintain cleanliness, they cannot evade their liability towards their customers of performing due care by saying this. As it can be said clearly that a breach of duty has taken place by the supermarket as there was melted ice cream spread on the floor and it was not noticed by the staff and there was approval of mandatory rules of care which were to be taken on that occasion. And due to this negligence Tamara got badly damaged. And so the supermarket should be held responsible for showing such negligence according to the three essentials mentioned above (LawWustledu, 2017).

The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the acts as well as the omissions that can be predicted from this. As this act was a clear act of negligence on the part of Aldi Supermarket this mishap could have been avoided if it was taken care of. This could have been predicted by the staff that this kind of un-cleanliness can lead to such a great damage to the customer (Wright, 2015).

It is being claimed by the Supermarket that their staff examines the aisle every 40 minutes. According to Section 5B (2) of Civil Liability Act of 2000 (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017), it is being considered that whether suitable precautions were taken by the offender or not as against the injury to the complainant, it has to be taken into account by the court the degree of damage that could take place if proper care is not taken and what all can be the significance of negligence (Lexis Nexis, 2017).

If considered the case of Tamara, it is very clear that any kind of spillage on the floor of the shop can damage any customer or any person as anyone can slip over it. The other fact is that how serious the case can become and no one can predict as it depends on the person to person. So, it is the duty of the supermarket that they undertake necessary preventive measures in order to avoid such accidents which Tamara has met. In order to determine a breach of the duty of care the court has laid down certain factors like higher the risks higher are the efforts expected from the offender to evade it which is termed as foresee ability (The University of Queensland, 2017).

In this case, foresee ability is expected from the Aldi Supermarket as there are many products if spilled over the floor can cause serious damage to anyone. And they cannot deny their responsibility or escape from one by saying that their staff conducts an inspection after every 40 minutes. So, Tamara can and should litigate the supermarket and should get necessary compensation from the supermarket. 

References

Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017. New South Wales Consolidated Acts: Civil Liability Act 2002. [Online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s5.html#negligence[Accessed 20 May 2017].

Australian Law Reform Commision, 2017. Authorising what would otherwise be a Tort. [Online] Available at: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-sue-tort[Accessed 20 may 2017].

LawWustledu, 2017. Negligence: Tort Outline. [Online] Available at: https://law.wustl.edu/sba/firstyearoutlines/torts/Unknown/TORTS_OUTLINE.pdf[Accessed 20 may 2017].

Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2017. Negligence. [Online] Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php[Accessed 20 may 2017].

Lexis Nexis, 2017. Civil Liability Australia. [Online] Available at: https://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en-au/products/civil-liability-in-australia.page[Accessed 20 May 2017].

Rajibjhassan, 2012. Negligence As A Tort: Meaning Essentials And Defences: An Overview. [Online]
Available at: https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/negligence-as-a-tort-meaning-essentials-and-defences-1297-1.html
[Accessed 20 may 2017].

The University of Queensland, 2017. Law of Torts (LAWS7002). [Online] Available at: https://www.uq.edu.au/study/course.html?course_code=LAWS7002[Accessed 20 may 2017].

Wright, B., 2015. Negligence and injury. [Online] Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.org.au/10_01_00_negligence_and_injury/
[Accessed 20 May 2017].