BUS107 T1 2019 Assessment 2 Student Information.V2.docx Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on...

Liability in Tort
    Liability in Tort    Negligence- Case studies
    
    
Table of Contents
1st Issue    2
1st Rule of Law    2
1st Application and Analysis    2
1st Conclusion    3
2nd Issue    3
2nd Rule of Law    3
2nd Application and Analysis    3
2nd Conclusion    4
3rd Issue    4
3rd Rule of Law    4
3rd Application and Analysis    4
3rd Conclusion    5
4th Issue    5
4th Rule of Law    5
4th Application and Analysis    5
4th Conclusion    6
5th Issue    6
5th Rule of Law    6
5th Application and Analysis    6
5th Conclusion    6
6th Issue    7
6th Rule of Law    7
6th Application and Analysis    7
6th Conclusion    7
References    8
1st Issue
Does Supermarkets owe Tamara a duty of care?
1st Rule of Law
Liability under Tort of Negligence arises when a duty of care is owed by the defendant. For successfully suing a defendant for negligence the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed him a duty of care, which is the relationship that exists in circumstances where one can predict that someone else might suffer injury due to action or inaction.
1st Application and Analysis
In the instant case study, Tamara for purchasing chocolates, went to supermarket and to grab the only piece left, she rushed herself and fell on a puddle, normally cleaned by shop’s staff in intervals of 40 minutes. She
oke her back and wanted to sue the supermarket for negligence and recover the compensation from them. To
ing and sustain a claim under negligence in Tort, there are certain which must be satisfied. Firstly, she must prove that there was a duty of care owed to her by the defendant. But, most importantly she must establish that, the proximity or the causation was foreseen by the defendant. In (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932) the development of the neighbourhood test ascertained the duty of care to be existed. Again, the three- fold test as held in case of (Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman , 1990), to determine whether there existed the duty of care, suggested that there must be some harm foreseen by the defendant, along with the proximity of relationship between the claimant and the tort feasor must be sufficient, again, the liability to be imposed must also be fair, just and reasonable. In (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, 1935), Australia though agreed partially, but did not accepted that as binding. But, (Sullivan v Moody, 2001) did not think that the three- fold test could be held sufficient for determination of duty of care, and hence opined to consider the salient feature approach in cases of (Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’, 1976), (Pe
e v Apand Pty Ltd , 1999), and also in case of (Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan, 2002). Based on these above decisions it can be construed that the Supermarket did owe a duty towards Tamara.
1st Conclusion
So, supermarket have the duty to take care of Tamara, who is the customer and also due to satisfying the elements of the neighbourhood test.
2nd Issue
Did Supermarkets
each duty of care by failing to meet the standard of care?
2nd Rule of Law
A duty owed must be
eached so as to
ing an action for negligence.
2nd Application and Analysis
When duty owed becomes ascertained, then the
each of it must also suffice. But, the Court consider the determination of
each through the subjective as well as objective test. The subjective test becomes satisfied when the defendant...