Commercial Law for Law Vision Pty Ltd-myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theCommercial Law for Law Vision Pty Ltd. Answer: Facts There is a specific brand of chocolate bar to which Tamara is highly addicted and, which is sold by only one retailer, Aldi Supermarkets. She goes to the Aldi Supermarket every day to purchase her favorite chocolate bar but, it is time and again sold out. Due to this reason, she used to get very upset. On one wet Saturday morning in January, Tamara was as usual passed through her local Aldi Supermarket when she saw from far end of the lane that there was only one chocolate bar left for sale at the market. As she was addicted to that chocolate, she ran towards the shop to purchase that chocolate bar. However, there was one more purchaser of chocolate at the end of the lane seeing whom, Tamara ran even faster in order to purchase the chocolate bar towards the shop. As she was rushing towards the chocolate bar, she slid over a puddle of melted ice cream due to which, her back got harshly injured. She had to spend several months in hospital for the purpose of recovering her health and mo re than $700,000. Although, Aldi Supermarkets had the proof that a staff member inspects the passage area of the supermarket every 40 minutes for the cleaning purposes. Issue Tamara wishes to litigate Aldi Supermarkets in negligence for the losses she suffered. Relevant Law and Applicability In Australia, the tort of negligence is measured as a legal act that can be taken by an individual to whom a wrongful acts done by the offender owing a reasonable duty of care. Accountability of the offender rises when duty to take care is recognized and it has also been established that due to breach of due care, significant damage has been caused to the complainant. There must be the establishment of three essentials by the injured party or the complainant under the tort of negligence in order to be efficacious namely duty of care, breach, and damage (Witting, 2007). It is measured as the duty of the offender to take reasonable care which is anticipated from him/her during negligent act made by him/her to the complainant. It is also to be recognized that the offender failed to take due care as anticipated while doing negligent act. Furthermore, it is also required to be established by the complainant that due to negligent act of the offender, injury has been caused to the complaina nt (ALRC, 2017). In Tamaras case, she can litigate Aldi Supermarkets for the tort of negligence. It is undoubtedlyapparent that there was a duty of reasonable care which was anticipated from the Aldi Supermarkets in order to maintain cleanliness to prevent such accidents as happened with Tamara. While staff of the supermarket checks the supermarket aisles after every 40 minutes for the purpose of cleanliness, they cannot get away from their liability of due care towards customers. A breach of duty has been established by the supermarket because there was melted ice cream on the floor and staff failed to notice it and approved mandatory standard of care which was to be taken on that occasion. Due to this negligent act of the staff of Aldi Supermarkets, Tamara got seriously injured because of slipping over it. Therefore, the act done by the supermarket should be considered as negligent because of meeting the above mentioned three essentials (Doepel Downie, 2006). The acts and omissions which can reasonably be predicted should also be taken into consideration. As it shows the negligence of the staff of Aldi Supermarket, the harm that had been occurred to Tamara might have been avoided by the appropriate performance of their duties. It was the duty of the staff to avoid such an act which should have been reasonably predicted by the staff that any spillage on the floor could cause harm to the customers(University of Western Australia, 2017). In Donoghue vs. Stevenson, the intention of the manufacturer was established that the drink should reach up to the customer sealed without being examined but it should have been assured by the manufacturer that harmful things should not have went into the bottles (Law Vision, 2008). It was the duty of the manufacturer to reasonably forecast the injury that could have been happened to the complainant in a case such a harmful thing would be taken by them, thus, it was concluded by the court that the manufactur er owed a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue (Rule of Law Institute of Australia, 2012). Aldi Supermarkets claimed that their staff examines the Supermarket lanes in every 40 minutes. According to Section 5B(2) of Civil Liability Act of 2002, in determination of whether suitable precautions would have been taken by the offender as a reasonable being against the risk of destruction or injury, it is required to be taken into consideration by the court that the likelihood of the happening of harm if care had not been taken, the possible significance of the damage had occurred, defenses taken to avoid the destruction and social utility of the actions that might cause risk of damage or injury(Lexisnexis, 2006). In Tamaras case, it is reasonably obvious that due to any spillage over the floor in the Supermarket aisles, customers or any other person could have slip over it and can get hurt. Furthermore, the severity of injury cannot be determined as it depends on person to person because severe wounds might also occur to some of the individuals. Thus, preventive measures are an ticipated to be taken in the best interests of the Supermarket to avoid such accidents which have been caused to Tamara. To determine breach of duty of care, the court contemplates few factors which include foreseeability of risk which means, higher the risk, the more the efforts which are required by the offender to evade it(The University of Queensland, 2017). The court decides the rationality of the actions conducted by the offender also which might comprise of various factors which include the cost and burden enforced by eradicating the risk accompanied by social and public utility of the conducts of the offender. In Tamaras case, foreseeability is anticipated from the Aldi supermarket since there are various products which are sold by the market if get fallen over the floor might cause severe injuries to the customers. They cannot escape with their accountabilities by appealing that their staff take due care of the cleanliness but, they are anticipated to take standard care during any spillage on the floor because customers can get hurt promptly. Therefore, Tamara can litigate the supermarket and would be compensated by the supermarket. References ALRC, 2017. Authorising what would otherwise be a Tort. Australian Law Reform Commission, pp. 107-111. Doepel, M. Downie, C., 2006. A Comprehensive Guide to Tort Law Reform throughout Australia, s.l.: Kennedys. Law Vision, 2008. The Law of Torts, s.l.: Law Vision Pty Ltd . Lexisnexis, 2006. Civil Liability Australia. [Online] Available at: https://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en-au/products/civil-liability-in-australia.page[Accessed 19 May 2017]. Rule of Law Institute of Australia, 2012. Torts: Legal Wrongs and the Rule of Law. [Online] Available at: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Video-2-Worksheet-Snails-Mice-and-Tort-Law-Qld.pdf[Accessed 19 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 19 May 2017]. University of Western Australia, 2017. Don't Be Negligent - Find Out About Torts. [Online] Available at: https://guides.library.uwa.edu.au/torts [Accessed 19 May 2017]. Witting, C., 2007. Tort Law, Policy and the High Court of Australia. Melbourne University Law Review, Volume 31, p. 569.