Commercial law
Issue-was the negligence of Aldi store cause of injury to Tamara.
Rules-the rule in accordance to the facts is:-
Negligence-it is called the inability to take care over something it can also be divided into some further elements.
1-Duty of care-When a person or an organisation owes someone a duty of care is required to maintain a proper care standard while performing the task which could cause harm to others.Violation of this term may result in a liability,as in commercial law duty of care is called an obligation which is charged on a person requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing a task that can cause harm to other persons(neighbours).This is the first principle that should be …show more content…
4-Harm-the occurrence of injury,financial loss occurred by violating the duty of care,therefore enables injured party to claim for damages.
Application-
1-Duty of care-Aldi store owes tamara a duty of care as Aldi is the occupier and therefore they should provide proper standard of care to others(Tamara) as they should put the safety sign or a caution sign for wet floor so that a reasonable person can judge the risk ( Hackshaw v Shaw).
2-Breach of duty of care was done by Aldi store as they didn’t took any measures by cleaning or displaying any safety sign for the safety from the puddle of melted ice-cream.(Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna).
3-Causation-The probability of harm in this case was high as the puddle of ice-cream was the actual cause for injury to tamara(proved by ‘but for’ test) and the effort for taking precautions to reduce the risk was not too high(Cork v kirby Maclean).
4-Harm-due to the negligence shown by Aldi store Tamara suffered an injury in which she breaks her back(Donoghue v Stevenson).
Conclusion-Tamara can sue Aldi supermarkets for negligence to recover her losses (medical expenses). Commercial
Issue-was the negligence of Aldi store cause of injury to Tamara.
Rules-the rule in accordance to the facts is:-
Negligence-it is called the inability to take care over something it can also be divided into some further elements.
1-Duty of care-When a person or an organisation owes someone a duty of care is required to maintain a proper care standard while performing the task which could cause harm to others.Violation of this term may result in a liability,as in commercial law duty of care is called an obligation which is charged on a person requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing a task that can cause harm to other persons(neighbours).This is the first principle that should be …show more content…
4-Harm-the occurrence of injury,financial loss occurred by violating the duty of care,therefore enables injured party to claim for damages.
Application-
1-Duty of care-Aldi store owes tamara a duty of care as Aldi is the occupier and therefore they should provide proper standard of care to others(Tamara) as they should put the safety sign or a caution sign for wet floor so that a reasonable person can judge the risk ( Hackshaw v Shaw).
2-Breach of duty of care was done by Aldi store as they didn’t took any measures by cleaning or displaying any safety sign for the safety from the puddle of melted ice-cream.(Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna).
3-Causation-The probability of harm in this case was high as the puddle of ice-cream was the actual cause for injury to tamara(proved by ‘but for’ test) and the effort for taking precautions to reduce the risk was not too high(Cork v kirby Maclean).
4-Harm-due to the negligence shown by Aldi store Tamara suffered an injury in which she breaks her back(Donoghue v Stevenson).
Conclusion-Tamara can sue Aldi supermarkets for negligence to recover her losses (medical expenses). Commercial