The Implications of Astley

Question: Can Aldi Supermarkets is fully responsible for the damages suffered by Tamara. If no, with whom Aldi Supermarkets shares its liabilities? Answer: Relevant Law The law of negligence and its defenses are analyzed to resolve the concern arose. Duty of care, its breach and the damages suffered are the three basic ingredients which are must to be proved to hold any person liable under the law of negligence. The law of negligence is an old principle which makes every person imposed with an implied duty that he should conduct himself in such a manner so that because of his conduct no other person is affected negatively. But, this is a very generic definition and is vague. In Langridge v Levy (1837), the law of negligence was applied in Australia, but its basic principles were evolved in an English common law case, Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The leading case has provided all the basic ingredients required to prove negligence. (Law, 2016) 1.The defendant is negligent provided he is under the obligation to provide care against all of his acts and inactions. Duty of care signifies that when the defendant is doing any activity or inactivity then it is his responsibility to make sure that no person is negatively affected by it and if there are chances of any harm then he must forgo with such activity and inactivity (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt[1980]). 2.This duty of car e only against his neighbors. His neighbors are those plaintiffs who are supposed to be affected by the activity or inactivity of the defendants. If the person is not in the zone in which the acts or inactions of defendant fall, then, such person is not the neighbor of the defendant. The neighbor is only such person who is very closes or connected with the defendant so that he is directly affected by the acts or omissions of the defendant (Burnie Port Authority v General Jones [1994]). The duty is against those acts or inactions the brunt of which is reasonably foreseeable and in such situation care must be undertaken by the defendant. If the brunt is not reasonably foreseeable then there is no duty (Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985]. (Prue V, 2000)The defendant when fails to fulfill his duty then there is breach of the same. The breach resulted when what is desired from the defendant is not achieved. The level is not met when the degree and standard of care that is required is not achieved. The level varies but must be met by the defendant in order to avoid any liability of negligence. In Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) the standard of care that is expected is not met and is considered to have breach in his duty to provide care to the plaintiff. (N. L'Estrange, 1987) 1.The breach should have caused loss/injury/damage to the plaintiff. There must be some kind of disadvantage that must be caused to the plaintiff Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999). (Treasury, 2002) 2.The damage so caused should be direct. If the damage is remote and cannot even be imagined by the defendant then he is not negligent. Also, the damage should be berceuse of defendant actions and inactions. But, even when all the elements are present, still, if the loss that is caused to the plaintiff is also the results of the contribution by the plaintiff along with the defendant, then, the defendant cannot be held answerable for the whole loss. But, his liability is reduced to the quantum of wrongful act undertaken by the plaintiff (Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999). This is the defense of contributory negligence. (A Freilich, 2000) Application To prove that the Aldi Supermarket is negligent, it is necessary for Tamara to prove all the elements of the law of negligence. 1.Aldi Supermarket is a store and is aware that it is visited by many customers. So, it has a duty in law to provide safe environment for shopping. Thus, there is a duty of care that is imposed upon the store in law. 2.This duty of care that is imposed upon the store is against all of its customers because all if its customers are sharing proximate relationship with the store. Tamara is one of the customers of the store, so, Aldi Supermarket has a duty to provide care to Tamara. This duty is against all reasonable foreseeable harm. Aldi Supermarket is aware that the aisle of the store must be kept clean and if the same is kept slippery then there are chances of fall outs. 1.The store has employed staff who insects the supermarket and cleans up the spillages in every forty minutes. Thus, it can be said that the store has tried to comply with its duty of care. But, the degree of care that is required, considering the fact that the store is continuously visited by customers, is not met. So, there is breach of duty of care. 2.The duty of care is breached because there was an ice cream near the aisle and Tamara slipped on the same and broke her back and which has resulted in the damages of $700,000. 3.The damages which are incurred is because of the breach of the store and the damage is not remote. So, the Aldi Supermarket is answerable to the losses of Tamara and is negligent in its action. But, the injury that is caused to Tamara is suffered by her because of her action also. Tamar was running very fast in order to grab her favorite chocolate. This has resulted in losing her balance and she slipped. If Tamara was walking in a decent manner then may be the injury might not have incurred. So, Tamara has also contributed to her loss. Thus, the store can rely on the defense of contributory negligence in order to reduce its liability. Conclusion So, the store has a duty of care which is not by it causing harm to Tamara, so, the store is negligent. But, the acts of Tamara ahs also resulted in her loss so, the store can take the defense of contributory negligence. References Books/Articles/Journals A Freilich (2000) Contributory Negligence and Breach of Contract: The Implications of Astley v Austrust Ltd. Vol 29. L'Estrange (1987) proximity and the standard of care cook v. Cook, QLD. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL. Treasury (2002) Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Causation and Remoteness of Damage. Vines P, (2000) UNSWLawJl 25. Case laws Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 155. Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 61 A.L.J.R. 180 Burnie Port Authority v General Jones [1994] HCA 13. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Langridge v Levy (1837). Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] HCA 41. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt[1980] HCA 12 Online Material Law (2016) Example of the Development of Court Made Law (Online). Available at : https://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1838186/Example_Development-of-law-negligence.pdf. Accessed on 20th January 2016.