Tamara to Succeed In Suing Supermarkets †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Questions: Did Aldi Breach their Duty of Care by Failing to Meet the Standard of Care? Were Tamaras Injuries Caused by Aldis Actions and are not too Remote? Can Aldi Potentially Rely on the Defense of Contributory Negligence? Can Aldi Potentially Rely on the Defense of Voluntary Assumption of Risk? Will Tamara be able to Recover the Full Value of her Losses? Answers: Introducation Duty of care is the lawful duty of any individual, to act or conduct themselves in a manner that would not cause harm to another person. Negligence is a theory whereby a company or individual is held accountable for any accidents or injuries that could have been prevented. A claim of negligence involves substantial proof from the plaintiff whether the defendant indeed owes a duty of care legally (Murgatroyd et al 2016). According to the stated duty of care, Aldi supermarkets do not appear to perform the duty of care towards its customers. Due to the failure of regularly cleaning the floors, Tamara slips on a melted ice-cream puddle and breaks her back. If the cleaner at Aldi supermarket would have been keen to regularly clean the floors, Tamara would not fall on the melted ice cream puddle. 1.Breaching of duty is the situation whereby a defendant in a certain situation fails to act responsibly as compared to how a normal person would act if put in the similar situation (Pagura, 2015). In skipping turns of supervision and cleaning of the floors, Aldi does not meet the expected care standards expected from its customers. It is normally required that especially during a wet season, to inspect any floor spillages and wipe immediately. Tamara can also impose on the failure of standard care because she never gets to have the chocolate of her choice due to limited stock at Aldi supermarkets. As a result of running for the last bar of chocolate on the shelf, Tamara slips breaking her back. The supermarket attendants were never keen to notice the multiple disappointments that Tamara had to go through each time she missed her favorite chocolate. This would have enabled them to increase the stock on the chocolate due to its high demand. If the supermarket had provided enough stock on Tamaras favorite chocolate, she would not have to run for the chocolate. 2.Before a plaintiff sues for negligence, they should be able to prove that their injuries are as a result of the defendants negligence. It is also important to consider whether the event of the injury was foreseeable by the defendant or it just happened unexpectedly (Law, 2014). Although the cleaner at Aldi supermarket was negligent to clean the melted ice cream puddle, it was not foreseen that a customer would have to run across the aisle. However, it is Aldis duty to place warning signs of slippery floor within the aisles to prevent any unforeseen accidents. The injuries Tamara suffers are not a causative action of both Aldi supermarkets and her own. Both parties, in this case, are to be held responsible for their actions. If there was a caution sign present, Tamara would have carefully moved towards the shelf where the last chocolate bar was. Additionally, Tamara ought to know that running could cause one to fall unwillingly. 3.Contributory negligence is a part of a law which states that a plaintiffs injury is a contribution of their own negligence(Van Dongen, Verdam, 2016).The extent of the plaintiffs contributory negligence can end up ruling out the amount to be paid in order to cover for damages from the defendant(Schofield, 1890). Tamara exposes herself to the risk of slipping when she runs across the aisle. It is evident that her mind is so focused on the chocolate bar that she does not look down to see the melted ice cream. Based on the statement of contributory negligence from Tamaras action, it would be unfair to entirely put fault at Aldi supermarkets for Tamaras damages. 4.Can Aldi Potentially Rely on the Defense of Voluntary Assumption of Risk?4.Voluntary risk assumption refers to the defense action, taken by a defendant in proving that the involved plaintiff, knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risks bound to occur due to their activity (Bant Bryan, 2015). In most situations, the plaintiff in one way or another appears to relieve the defendant of their duty hence the impending harm. According to Tamaras situation, she would have informed the available supermarket attendant of her undying craving for the chocolate. Maybe the supermarket attendant would have helped to convince the other client to sacrifice and let Tamara have the chocolate instead. Moreover, the supermarket attendant would be able to notify Tamara on the right time to purchase the chocolate before many customers come to buy it. Instead, Tamara takes the matter in her hands and decides to run for the chocolate with the hope of getting to it first. Aldi supermarkets in this situation can defend itself with the fact that Tamara did not let them understand her headache in purchasing the chocolate bar. Perhaps they would have a better way of solving Tamaras problem and prevent her running, slipping and breaking of her back. 5.For a plaintiff to fully recover the value of losses incurred, they should be able to provide enough proof that the resultant harm is an entire fault of the defendant (Golanski, 2011). According to Tamaras situation, it is evident that the suffered losses and injuries not only result from Aldis negligence to put warning signs but also her own. She runs carelessly to reach for the chocolate not bearing the fact that she might accidentally fall and hurt herself. She is more concerned with her chocolate craving than her safety. Eventually, she ends up losing both the chocolate and further gets hurt. It is only fair that Aldi compensates half of the damages incurred on Tamara. This is because the area under which Tamara gets hurt is within their premise. Moreover, it is due to a melted ice cream that was not wiped by the cleaner responsible. References Abbas R. 2015Woman settles compensation claim for $60,000 after slipping in a Supermarkethttps://www.gerardmaloufpartners.com.au/Publication-1740-Woman-settles-compensation-claim-for--2460-2c000-after-slipping-in-a-Supermarket.aspx Bant, E., Bryan, M. (2015). Fact, Future and Fiction: Risk and Reasonable Reliance in Estoppel. Oxford Journal Of Legal Studies, 35(3), 427-452. Golanski, A. (2011). A New Look At Duty in Tort Law: Rehabilitating Foreseeability And Related Themes. Albany Law Review, 75(1), 227-278. Law, T. (2014). Case Note: O'Mara v Air Canada 2013 ONSC 2931. Travel Law Quarterly, 6(2), 127-131. Murgatroyd, D. F., Harris, I. A., Yvonne, T., Cameron, I. D., Tran, Y. (2016). The association between seeking financial compensation and injury recovery following motor vehicle related orthopaedic trauma. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 171-14. Pagura, I. (2015). Negligence: What you need to know. Journal Of The Australian Traditional-Medicine Society, 21(4), 254-256. Schofield, W. (1890). Davies v. Mann: Theory of Contributory Negligence. Harvard Law Review, 3(6), 263-277. Van Dongen, E. D., Verdam, H. P. (2016). The Development of the Concept of Contributory Negligence in English Common Law. Utrecht Law Review, 12(1), 61-74.