ALDI Supermarkets in Negligence

Question: Discuss about the ALDI Supermarkets in Negligence. Answer: Introduction: Accidents related to slips, trip and fall can be occurred at anyplace, and the most common places where these accidents happened are shopping centers, super markets, market places, and other places which are of private and public nature. For seeking the claim from other person, it is necessary for injured person to prove that he suffered a loss because of breach of duty of care other person owned (Legal Aid, n.d.). Section 5 of Civil Liability Act 2002 defines the meaning of harm, negligence, and personal injury. Harm means any kind of personal injury caused to person or death caused to person, any kind of damage to the property, and loss which is economic in nature. Negligence means any act of person in which fails to exercise reasonable care and skill and personal injury means any kind of pre natal injury caused to person, any impairment related to persons physical health or mental health, and any disease (Civil Liability Act 2002, 2002). Section 5B of Civil Liability Act 2002 stated that a person is considered as negligent in case he fails to take precautions against risk of harm if the risk associated with action is foreseeable, risk was not insignificant in nature, and whether in those situations any reasonable person would have taken those precautions. Section further stated Court considers following things to decide whether reasonable person would have taken those precautions or not: Probability of occurrence of harm if care were not taken. Degree of seriousness of harm. Burden to taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm. Social utility of the activity that creates risk of harm (Civil Liability Act 2002, 2002). Section 5C of the Civil Liability Act 2002 stated the matter related to proceedings for negligence: Any burden of taking precautions against risk of harm also includes the burden of taking precautions against similar risk of harm for which person may be responsible. It is also stated that any act conducted in different way for avoiding the risk of harm does not affect the liability or does not give rise to any liability. Any action taking subsequently to avoid the risk of harm does not affect the liability or does not give rise to liability, and it does not consider as admission of liability related to risk of harm (Civil Liability Act 2002, 2002). Following case law put some light on the present case: Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010) NSWCA 208: in this case, the appellant seek damages from shopping centre for an injury caused to his right knee after he slipped on a pedestrian ramp at the Banks town Centro Shopping Centre. After slipping plaintiff found sticky substance which cover area of approximately one sq. meter of the ramp where plaintiff slipped. Shopping centre stated number of evidence which proved that ramp was cleaned approximately in every 15 to 20 minutes by the cleaners. The appellate argued that evidence showed by the respondent does not prove that pedestrian ramp was inspected in every 10 minutes, and respondent breach duty of care by not having proper cleaning system. Trial judge held that the system of cleaning is operation was reasonable, and respondent does not breach their duty of care. Plaintiff files appeal against the decision of trial judge. Court of Appeal stated trial judge failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his conclusion that cleaning system of respondent was reasonable. Court further stated that evidence does not prove the arguments of respondent. Court of Appeal held that appellant does not discharge his burden of proof, and even if breach of duty was found then also appellants case does not satisfy the requirements of causation because he was not able show that cleaning system of less than 15-20 minutes would prevent such accidents (Barry Nilson, 2011; Nolan, 2010). Application: In the present case, Tamara is walking down the confectionary aisle that is situated in her local Aldi supermarket. While walking down she sees her favorite chocolate at the end of the aisle and there is only one chocolate left for the sale. She starts running at the end of the aisle for getting that chocolate bar. She sees another customer at the end, so Tamara runs even faster. Before reaching the chocolate bar she slips because of melted ice cream on floor and breaks her back bone. It takes several months to her for recovering in hospital, and it cost excess of $700,000. In this case, super market proves that staff member inspects the place in every 40 minutes and they keep the surface clean. This case is similar to case Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010) NSWCA 208 in which Court of Appeal held that breach of duty was found and also appellants case does not satisfy the requirements of causation because he was not able show that cleaning system of less than 15-20 minutes would prevent such accidents. In this case, there is no evidence which shows that cleaning system of supermarket of less than 40 minutes would prevent such accidents. On the other hand, Tamara was running for the chocolate and she also not takes any precaution measures. She is not able to satisfy the requirements of causation in this case. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of Aldi Supermarket and there cleaning system is reasonable. All the damages which are general in nature cost excess of $700,000 to her which she cannot claim as damages from Aldi supermarket. Conclusion: In this case, Tamara cannot seek damages from Aldi Supermarket on the part of negligence because she is not able to satisfy the rules stated in causation and she is not able to prove that cleaning system of Aldi supermarket was not reasonable, and no evidence was presented by Tamara shows that cleaning system of supermarket of less than 40 minutes would prevent such accidents. Therefore, she does not seek damages from Aldi supermarket on part of negligence. References: Legal Aid. Negligence, duty of care and loss. Available at: https://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Personal-rights-and-safety/Injury-loss-and-compensation/Negligence-duty-of-care-and-loss#toc-what-is-a-duty-of-care--2. [Accessed on 23rrd January 2017] Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010) NSWCA 208. Civil Liability Act 2002- sect 5. Civil Liability Act 2002- sect 5B. Civil Liability Act 2002- sect 5C. Jacobs, B. Harvey, E. Supermarket not liable for slip in shopping centre common area. Available at: https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5491/supermarket-not-liable-for-slip-in-shopping-centre.aspx. [Accessed on 23rrd January 2017] Barry Nilson. (2011). Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010) NSWCA 208. Available at: https://www.bnlaw.com.au/content/Document/Casebooks%202010%20-%202015/00%20Barry_Nilsson_%20Lawyers%202011%20Insurance%20Review%20Casebook.pdf. [Accessed on 23rrd January 2017]. Noaln, H. (2010). Shopping Centre Cleaning Case Is My Cleaning System Reasonable. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/108876/Personal+Injury/Shopping+Centre+Cleaning+Case+Is+My+Cleaning+System+Reasonable. [Accessed on 23rrd January 2017]