Commercial Law Tamara

Question: Discuss about theCommercial Lawfor Tamara. Answer: Facts A case of Tamara is mentioned. Tamara is a Chocoholic person and the brand which was preferable by her was used to get sold only in Aldi local supermarket. Sometime the product was out of sell. On a Sunday she found one chocolate left on the bar from afar end. When she ran to buy the chocolate she felt on a puddle of ice cream and that is the reason she broke her back. She spent $70,000 in hospital. After such accident she wants to sue Aldi supermarket for negligence. The supermarket counter claims that they clean the floor after every 40 minutes. Issues Issues rise because of the chocoholic nature of Tamara. Tamara had a wish to buy her favourite brand chocolate, the problem raised when she fell down by lump of the melted ice cream on the floor at front of the shop. Issues rose when she got back injury and lost lots of money for her treatment. Here the question rises: Will Tamara get success on suing Aldi Supermarket? Will Tamara get success in asking remedy or damages for her treatment and accident? Rules In this case somehow negligence is done by Tamara because she should not have run in that manner for a chocolate which is the reason of are injury ad accident. But if legal guidance is asked by Tamara for her damage then, she can ask for the damages which she has faced because of Aldi Supermarket. The Aldi Supermarket has done tort of negligence and breached duty of care. When a legal wrong is done and foreseeable risk is avoided then negligence occurs. The neighbours principle is hurt in case of Tamara (Raz, 2010). Tamara is neighbour in this case whose principle is hurt. It is the duty of the management of the shop to check on the hygiene, safety and cleanliness of the premises of the market. In this case Aldi Supermarket breached the duty of care by not cleaning the floor of the shop. It is their responsibility to check the condition of the floor and maintain cleanliness and hygiene but they did not do that. When Tamara ran in the shop buying a chocolate, she fall down on the floor because of the melted ice cream poured on the floor. This is the reason that Tamara can sue the supermarket for breaching duty of care. Tort of negligence is done by hurting neighbours (Tamara) principle (Li-xin, 2010). There are some basic elements of negligence. When the duty owned by person to person it is the responsibility of an individual to follow the regulations of the duty. Breach of duty can be the reason of physical damage and monetary loss. In this case breach of Work Health and Safety Act 2011 has done because in case of this act it is the responsibility to provide a safe environment which is can but Aldi Supermarket did negligence to provide such safe and clean environment. There are different rules which a shop should follow for customer attraction but Aldi Supermarket lacks to follow such criteria (Hughes, 2011). As Tamara is physically injured and she lost money in treatment, so in that case she can ask on punitive damage from Aldi Supermarket for breach of duty of care. As neighbours principle is hurt, so in that case punitive damages can be asked from Aldi Supermarket because for breaching duty of care, as per tort of negligence compensation may be claimed against the supermarket and if the compensation is not given by them, then they may be imprisoned. Counter claim has done by Aldi Supermarket that after every 40 minutes the spillage of the shops is cleaned. But this counter claim cannot be accepted because, in any supermarket, it is necessary that the floors should be cleaned whenever it is necessary within 15 minutes which has not been done by Aldi Supermarket. As it was the day of heavy rainfall and the floors were wet, so it was the concern of the management to check the cleanliness of the floor. There are two reasons behind the accident of Tamara. The first reason was wet floor and the second reason was the ice cream which was poured on the floor. These are the reasons of negligence. Application In this case the legal advisor may tell Tamara to sue Aldi Supermarket as per CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 for Tort of negligence. As per section 3B of Civil Liability Act the plaintiff can be sued by the defiant (Wesley, 2011). It is seen that because of the negligence done by the premises of the company, it is necessary that several duties and responsibilities should be fulfilled by the management of supermarket, so that people are not in any problem because of the breach of duty of care (Villa, 2002). As per section 5B if the duty of care is breached, then possible remedies may be taken by Tamara from the supermarket. As per section 5C of duty of care the civil liability of tort is constraint. If the plaintiff is guilty then penalty or imprisonment may be the result of breach of duty of care. There are different functions which are needed to be fulfilled through which the dimensions of the organizational structure are fulfilled (Ehrich, 2011). In case of Tamara, it is clearly analyzed that because of the breach of tort certain carelessness is done by the supermarket by not cleaning the floor. In certain case actions or remedy can be taken by Tamara. Conclusion The conclusion is decided on its consequences. Tamara is harmed by Aldi Supermarket because it was their duty to make the floor clean and safe (Burns, 2013). This is necessary that several cases against tort of negligence may be used so that harm can be balanced and the shop that is vicariously liability for the harm and injury of Tamara (Barker, 2012). It is complied that to protect a person from the harm legal order maybe given by court in terms of financial penalty of money which has been invested by Tamara for her treatment. References Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., Trindade, F. (2012).The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Burns, K. L. (2013). Its not just policy: The role of social facts in judicial reasoning in negligence cases. Ehrich, J. A. (2011). Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: A Case for an Independent Duty Rule in Minnesota.Wm. Mitchell L. Rev.,37, 1402-5337. Hughes, P., Ferrett, E. (2011).Introduction to health and safety at work. Routledge. Li-xin, Y. A. N. G. (2010). The Reform of Liability for Damages Caused by Medical Treatment in the Tort Liability Law: Its Success and Shortages [J].Journal of Renmin University of China,4, 004. Raz, J. (2010). Responsibility and the negligence standard.Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1-18. Villa, D. (2012).Annotated Civil Liability Act 2002, NSW. Thomson Reuters. Wesley, M. (2011).There goes the neighbourhood: Australia and the rise of Asia. ReadHowYouWant. com.