Business law Aldi Supermarkets Negligent - Free Sample

To prove the above issues, the analysis of the law of negligence is required. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the law of negligence was analyzed for the first time wherein it was held by Lord Atkin that no harm must be caused to the consumer for the products supplied by the manufactures. So to prove negligence the basic requirements include: (RN Moles, 2016) Once proved, the defendant is negligent. But, if the defendant can prove that the damage which is caused to the plaintiff is not by the performance of the defendant alone but the plaintiff has also acted negligently and it is her negligence which has also resulted in the contribution of damage then the contributory defense can be availed. The liability of the defendant can be reduced proportionately Kalokerinos v Burnett  [1996]. It is submitted that the Aldi Supermarkets is negligent and must pensate Tamara. The negligence is established because of the following reasons: Thus, Aldi can be casted with the DUTY OF CARE that it must furnish against Tamara. So, all the above facts when applied to the case laws reveal that the Aldi Supermarkets is totally negligent in its actions because the duty of care is not furnish by its properly and which has resulted in causing loss to Tamara. But, Aldi Supermarkets cannot be held liable for all the losses and it has a defense of contributory negligence. Aldi can prove that though it has not catered its duty properly which has resulted in the loss of Tamara. But, the loss that is caused to Tamara is exaggerated by her actions as well. If Tamara would have not run very fast on the aisle of the supermarket in order to grab the chocolate knowing the fact that the market has frequent visitors and that some other customers is also approaching the chocolate section, then, the loss that is suffered by her can be reduced. Tamara has contributed because she ran very fast knowing the fact that it was a wet day and there are chances that she might get sip if she will run fast. Thus, Tamara has contributed to her own loss. So, Aldi can rely on the defense of contributory negligence. The Aldi has not provided adequate care to the market visitors and this breach of care has resulted in loss to Tamara. So, there is clear negligence on the part of Aldi. But, Aldi can prove that Tamara was also negligent in her actions and has contributed to her own loss by running fast on aisle on the wet day. Atkins et al. (2014) Ethics and Law for Australian Nurses. Cambridge University Press. Barnett K, (2014) Equitable pensation and remoteness: not so remote from the mon law after all’. P Latimer (2012) Australian Business law, CCH Australia Limited. R N Moles (2016) Law Reports, McAlister or Donoghue (Pauper) v. Stevenson (1932). Burnie Port Authority v General Jones [1994]. Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999). Wyong Shire Council v Shirt  [1980].