Commercial law
IRAC-Tamara v Aldi Store
Issue- Is the negligence of Aldi store cause of injury to Tamara.
Rules-the rule in accordance to the facts is:-
Negligence-it is called a situation i which an individual owes another individual a duty of care,it is a deficiency or a failure to do a thing which a reasonable person would or would not, do and which leads to a harm or an injury to another person in a result. In South Australia the civil liability Act 1936 (SA) is used to find out the negligence of a person and the liability the will face as a result of the negligent task on their part.
If an individual(plaintiff) takes legal action against the other individual(defendant) in negligence,it means they are seeking for any financial …show more content…
All these questions need to be satisfied.if even one of them is not satisfied then the plaintiff will not be able to establish that the defendant is negligent.
1)Duty of care-Duty of care is called a legal obligation which avoids harm and arises where harm or an injury is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ if proper care is not taken.There must be a sufficient relationship between two individuals of a duty of care to exist between them.An example of duty of care is a relationship between bus driver and his passengers.
2)Breach of duty of care-To find out the breach of duty of care the court will look at standard of care is established in the circumstances.The standard of care is figured out by finding that what a reasonable person would have done or would not have done in those conditions or circumstances in which a defendant has acted in a wrong manner or their actions fell below than the expected standard actions of a normal individual in those circumstances as a result they will be found to have breached duty of care.example-when a driver fails to indicate and runs into a car on the side of …show more content…
2-Breach of duty of care was done by Aldi store as they didn’t took any measures by cleaning or displaying any safety sign for the safety from the puddle of melted ice-cream which resulted into the fall of tamara and made her suffered an injury in which she breaks her back and lost her precious money and time healing in the hospital(Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna).
3-Causation-The probability of harm in this case was high as the puddle of ice-cream was the actual cause for injury to tamara had there been no melted ice-cream she would not had injured herself or a safety sign which would have reduced the chance of injury(proved by ‘but for’ test) ,the effort for taking precautions to reduce the risk was not too high the only thing they had to do is to put the caution sign which would have not consumed enough time and money.(Cork v kirby Maclean).
Tamara suffered a harm due to the negligence shown by Aldi store and suffered an injury in which she breaks her back(Donoghue v
IRAC-Tamara v Aldi Store
Issue- Is the negligence of Aldi store cause of injury to Tamara.
Rules-the rule in accordance to the facts is:-
Negligence-it is called a situation i which an individual owes another individual a duty of care,it is a deficiency or a failure to do a thing which a reasonable person would or would not, do and which leads to a harm or an injury to another person in a result. In South Australia the civil liability Act 1936 (SA) is used to find out the negligence of a person and the liability the will face as a result of the negligent task on their part.
If an individual(plaintiff) takes legal action against the other individual(defendant) in negligence,it means they are seeking for any financial …show more content…
All these questions need to be satisfied.if even one of them is not satisfied then the plaintiff will not be able to establish that the defendant is negligent.
1)Duty of care-Duty of care is called a legal obligation which avoids harm and arises where harm or an injury is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ if proper care is not taken.There must be a sufficient relationship between two individuals of a duty of care to exist between them.An example of duty of care is a relationship between bus driver and his passengers.
2)Breach of duty of care-To find out the breach of duty of care the court will look at standard of care is established in the circumstances.The standard of care is figured out by finding that what a reasonable person would have done or would not have done in those conditions or circumstances in which a defendant has acted in a wrong manner or their actions fell below than the expected standard actions of a normal individual in those circumstances as a result they will be found to have breached duty of care.example-when a driver fails to indicate and runs into a car on the side of …show more content…
2-Breach of duty of care was done by Aldi store as they didn’t took any measures by cleaning or displaying any safety sign for the safety from the puddle of melted ice-cream which resulted into the fall of tamara and made her suffered an injury in which she breaks her back and lost her precious money and time healing in the hospital(Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna).
3-Causation-The probability of harm in this case was high as the puddle of ice-cream was the actual cause for injury to tamara had there been no melted ice-cream she would not had injured herself or a safety sign which would have reduced the chance of injury(proved by ‘but for’ test) ,the effort for taking precautions to reduce the risk was not too high the only thing they had to do is to put the caution sign which would have not consumed enough time and money.(Cork v kirby Maclean).
Tamara suffered a harm due to the negligence shown by Aldi store and suffered an injury in which she breaks her back(Donoghue v