The Search for Coherence Tamara

Question: Discuss about the Search for Coherence Tamara Chocolate Bar. Answer: Advice for Tamara In this case, the issue that needs to be decided if Tamara can be successful in suing Aldi supermarkets in negligence. Tamara had suffered an injury as she had slipped on a puddle of ice-cream that was present on the floor. As a result of the fall, Tamara broke her back. Due to this injury, she had to spend a lot of time in the hospital and the general damages alone were in excess of $700,000. Consequently she wants to know if she can be successful in suing Aldi supermarkets in negligence. While giving this advice to Tamara, it also needs to be considered if any defense may be available to Aldi supermarkets against the allegations of negligence, particularly in view of the fact that a staff member of the supermarket inspects the aisles regularly and the spillage, if any, is cleared after every 40 minutes. Hence, for the purpose of deciding this issue, the general principles concerning the law of negligence have to be considered and it has to be seen if all the elements that are neces sary for establishing the negligence of the defendant are present in this case or not. When one party owes a duty of care towards the other, it can be said that negligence is doing something or failing to do something that any other reasonable person would have done and as a result of which, the other party has been suffered damage or injury (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). In order to find out the presence of negligence as well as to fix the liability of the defendant for its negligent acts, the provisions of Civil Liability Act may also be used. When a party has decided to sue the other for negligence, such a party seeks financial compensation from the defendant in view of the damage that has been suffered by it. Hence the purpose behind providing damages is to place the person in a similar position in which such person would have been if the defendant would not have acted negligently (Tomasic, Bottomley and McQueen, 2002). For the purpose of deciding if the defendant was negligent or not it needs to be considered if four elements that are mentioned below are present or not. First of all it needs to be seen if a duty of care is present on part of the defendant; if there is a breach of such duty by the defendant; if any damage or injury has been caused to the plaintiff and if the damage or the injury that has been caused to the plaintiff can be described as a direct result of such contravention of duty (McDonald, 2005). The law of negligence requires that all the elements mentioned above should be present in order to successfully sue the defendant in negligence. If any of these elements is not present in that case, it cannot be said that the act of the defendant was negligent. Under these circumstances, it becomes important to note what is the meaning of the duty of care. It's in case of negligence, the duty of care of the defendant can be described as the legal obligation which requires that a person should not cause damage to others. The duty is present when it is reasonably foreseeable that arm will be caused to the other person if reasonable care is not used. In this context, the law requires that the duty of care will arise only if there is sufficient proximity present between the plaintiff and the defendant and as a result of which it can be said that the defendant owes a duty towards the plaintiff (Gardiner and McGlone, 1998). An example of this situation can be given in the form of the duty of care owed by the driver of a motor vehicle towards the other road users. Similarly, a doctor also has a duty of care towards its patience. However certain qualifications have been imposed by the Civil Liability Act on the duty of care which includes the good Samaritans and food donors. For a successful action under negligence, the next requirement is that a breach of duty should take place. For deciding if a breach of duty has taken place, the court has to see the standard of care that can be applied in the case (Hepple, 1997). This standard of care needs to be decided in view of the fact that any other reasonable person would have done the same thing or not in a similar situation. If it is found that the actions of the defendant were on reasonable or if they were below the standard of care, the decision will be that there has been a violation of the duty on part of the defendant. Another requirement is that the claimant should establish that the injury/damage suffered by it was the direct result of the beach. Hence, if a person had fallen on wet floor, there is a clear connection between the injury and the wet floor. In view of the requirements that have to be satisfied for a successful claim in negligence, in this case also it can be said that, Tamara can successfully sue Aldi supermarkets in negligence. When Tamara saw that only one bar offered favorite chocolate was present for sale at the far end, she ran towards it. As another customer was also walking towards it, she started to run even faster and she slipped on a puddle of ice cream that was present on the floor. The result was that Tamara slipped and fell on the floor and she broke her back. By applying the principles of law of negligence, in this case, Tamara can successfully sue Aldi supermarkets in negligence. The reason is that all the elements that need to be established for bringing successful action in negligence are present in this case. A defense will not be available to Aldi even if it establishes that the supermarket isles were regularly inspected by its staff members and any spillage was cleaned every 40 minutes. The reason is that the injury suffered by Tamara was caused due to the breach of duty by Aldi supermarkets. References Gardiner D and McGlone, F., (1998) Outline of Torts (2nd ed,), Butterworths Hepple, B , (1997) Negligence: The Search for Coherence 50 Current Legal Problems 69 McDonald, B., (2005). Legislative Intervention in the Law of Negligence: The Common Law, Statutory Interpretation and Tort Reform in Australia. Sydney Law Review. 27 (3) Tomasic, R.; Bottomley, S.; McQueen, R., (2002) Audits and Auditors, Corporations Law in Australia, Federation Press Case Law Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100