Law of Tort and Negligence for Compensation - MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Law of Tort and Negligencefor Compensation. Answer: From the information available from the case scenario it is easy to discern that it is a case of tort and negligence. However it is pertinent to understand the instant case scenario. From the case it can be understood that the victim of the act of tort is Tamara. She is having a liking towards chocolates. She buys her favourite brand of chocolates from a particular supermarket namely the Aldi Supermarkets (Barker et al., 2012). It is said that she used to regularly visit the local supermarket in her vicinity to buy the said brand of chocolate but most of the time it used to be out of stock. It is said that one day she had entered the supermarket and saw from a distance that there was only one bar of chocolate available for purchase. She had to run to get it as there was another customer trying to get it. In the process, she slipped over a puddle of ice cream. As a result she got her back broken. She had to spend a lot of time in the hospital recovering from the injury and it cost her lot of money (Abraham, 2017). From understanding the above case scenario it is clear that Aldi Supermarket owners had not exercised their duty to take reasonable care towards Tamara. It has to be understood that action or words of a certain person may have an impact on another individual. It can be positive or negative in nature. In the present case scenario the staffs of the supermarket had omitted to carry out their duty of taking care towards their customers which resulted in the present debacle (Van Dam, 2013). Thus careless acts or omission to act can result in injury to the other individuals. Thus there is a close relation between the person who acts or omits to act and the person who is affected by such actions or omissions. Hence the duty to take reasonable care arises when the person holding the duty is able to foresee the negative consequences of his or her actions. In such cases he or she should try to avoid conducting such actions. Thus this particular case is related to negligent actions. In order to claim damages for negligent actions, the first thing that has to be proved before the court is that there was a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff. In the present case the relationship present between the supermarket and Tamara is a commercial relation of a seller and a buyer. Thus there are three important elements that have to be proved by Tamara before the court to prove that there is a liability of negligence. She will have to show that the Aldi Supermarket owners had a duty of care towards her (Smith, 2011). She also has to prove that the said duty has been breached by the supermarket. Moreover she has to prove that as a result of the breach she suffered from injury and damage which was both physical as well as financial nature. When speaking of the concept of duty of care, it is very important to discuss the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. This particular case is considered as landmark case which gave rise to a principle which is still used in modern day cases regarding liability of negligence. This is known as the principle of neighbour (Winfield, 2013). In the present case, the victim and her friend went to a cafe which sold ginger beer. The friend ordered a ginger beer which was consumed by the victim. When she drank some portion of it she discovered remnants of a decomposed snail within it. This caused mental shock and stomach problems to her. The drink used to be manufactured by the defendant. When the case was taken to the court the judge concluded that the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care towards the victim which was avoided. Thus the defendant was liable to compensate the victim. It was claimed by the defendant that he owed his duty only towards the purchaser of the ginger beer (Deakin et al., 2012). This is the time when the concept of neighbour principle was applied. A neighbour was considered as an individual who is affected by the acts and omissions of an individual even though there is no direct relationship. Within this case there is also the rule of vicarious liability which comes into play. The supermarket owners had claimed that they had employed staff who would maintain the aisles and clean spillages in every 40 minutes. However in such case the employees had conducted the act of negligence when they were in their course of employment. Thus Tamara has to prove that there was a relationship of employer and employee when the loss was suffered by her (Gardner, 2011). The employers on their part can show that they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the act of negligence could be avoided. The rule of vicarious liability gets its origins from the doctrine of agency. It is usually seen that the employees do not have the ability to compensate the sufferer due to their acts. However if their acts are ignored justice will not be delivered. Thus the employers are put under strict liability to take onus of the acts of their employees. This can only be averted if it is proved that the employee did this act when he was no longer performing his or her official duty. However in the instant case it is clear that the act was done in the capacity of their official duties (Cane and Atiyah, 2013). Thus Tamara has the right to sue both the employer and the employee of the super market. She can claim for general damages which she had to incur for the injuries she suffered. She can also ask for special damages for the mental and financial distress she had to undergo due to the negligent actions of the defaulter. References Abraham, K. (2017).The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic. Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., Trindade, F. (2012).The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Cane, P., Atiyah, P. S. (2013).Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law. Cambridge University Press. Deakin, S. F., Johnston, A., Markesinis, B. (2012).Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University Press. Gardner, J. (2011). What is tort law for? Part 1. The place of corrective justice.Law and Philosophy,30(1), 1-50. Smith, H. E. (2011). Modularity and Morality in the Law of Torts.J. TORT L.,4, 1. Van Dam, C. (2013).European tort law. OUP Oxford. Winfield, P. H. (2013).The Province of the Law of Tort. Cambridge University Press.