Maples Group v Simmons and Simmons

Question: Discuss about the Maples Group v Simmons and Simmons. Answer: Introduction: Can Aldi Supermarkets is negligent in their action. If yes, then can the supermarket protect itself under the defenses of negligence? The law of tort is a very important part of common law. The law of tort comprises of several other laws, such as, defamation, nuisance, negligence etc. The law of negligence simply states that no defendant should harm any plaintiff by his actions or omissions. But, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) it was held that if the defendant does so then he has committed an offence and is considered to be negligent. (P Latimer, 2012) But, it is not always that the defendant can be held negligent. There are few conditions which must be proved, which are called the essential elements of negligence. Duty of care - When the defendant does any act or omission, then, it is a duty in law that by his acts or omissions there should be no impairment that is caused to any person (plaintiff) (Electro Optics Systems West v NSW [2012]) If there are chances of any impairment, then, the defendant should not pursue with his acts. This duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on the defendant but the obligation can only be imposed provided: Proximity The defendant and plaintiff should share the relationship of proximity. Proximity implies that the plaintiff is placed at such a position so that any act/omission assumed by the defendant will affect the plaintiff directly, thereby making the plaintiff the neighbor of the defendant. It is an obligation on defendant to provide care to his neighbors (Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan (2002)). Forseeability The defendant when assuming any of his acts or omissions, then, he is duty bound to give protection to the plaintiffs for those impacts which he can foresee reasonably. If the defendant can envisage the impact of his acts then he should provide duty of care to the plaintiffs (Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009]). (M Eburn, 2013) Breach The defendant once imposed with the duty of care should follow the same. But, many a times the defendant fails to accommodate the duty of care that is imposed upon him in law. This non discharge of duty is called breach of duty of care (Paris v Stepney Borough Council[1950]. The duty is said to be breached when the level of protection that is anticipated from the defendant is not provided. The level of protection is not same in all situations. If the plaintiff is a child then the level is high, but, when the plaintiff is an adult then the level of protection is not very high (Boltonv Stone [1951]. Also, when the resultant damage is high then the level of protection that is sought from the acts or omission of the defendant is also high and vice versa. (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980). (Oxbridgenotes, 2014) Damages The duty of care when is not followed by the defendant, then, such failure must cause some kind of injury to the plaintiff. The injury that is caused should be the direct result of the acts of the defendant (causation). If the injury is not the resultant effect of the defendant failure, then, the defendant is not negligent. Further, the loss that is caused to the plaintiff should not be remote in nature (Allied Maples Group v Simmons Simmons [1995]. (Souper M, 2008) The plaintiff has to prove all the above elements to make a defendant negligent in his actions. When the defendant is an occupier of the premises, then, he is also imposed with a duty of care to provide safe environment to his visitors. When the premises is not safe or if the defendant is not able to keep the premises safe, then, the duty is said to be breached and any loss that is caused because of such breach will make the occupier of the premises negligent in his actions. Every defendant once proved to be negligent can still protect him under thedefense of contributory negligence by establishing the fact that the plaintiff has also indulged in some act/omission which has also contributed to the loss of the plaintiff. In such scenario, the liability that is imposed upon the defendant is reduced proportionately to the wrong that is incurred by the plaintiff himself (Astley Ors V. Austrust Limited(1999). Application Tamara visits the supermarket and found the last piece of her favorite brand. She ran very fast (as another customer was approaching) and fell over the melted ice cream. She suffers injuries. After understating the facts, it is submitted that Tamara can sue the supermarket under the law of negligence because: The Aldi supermarket is the owner of the store and it is its duty that the store must be safe for its visitors. This duty is extended to Tamara as she is the neighbor of the supermarket because they are in proximate relationship because any act or omission by the supermarket will affect Tamara directly. Also, the supermarket is duty bound to provide protection against all such acts or omission the effect of which it can reasonably predict. The supermarket failed in its duty to provide protection. This is because the staff of the supermarket only cleans the aisle every 40 minutes knowing the facts that there are many customers who are moving down the aisle and there are chances of accident. So the level of care is not met. This breach has caused harm to Tamara who is direct and predictable. So, the supermarket is negligent. But, the supermarket can take the defense of contributory negligence because Tamara ran very fast in order to take the chocolate knowing the fact that she might slip. But still she preferred to run very fast and thus has contributed to her loss. So, the liability of supermarket can be reduced to the contribution of Tamara. Conclusion The supermarket is liable under the law of negligence for causing harm to Tamara but it can take the defense of contributory negligence as Tamara has contributed to her own loss by running very fast. Reference List M Eburn (2013) Do Australian fire brigades owe a common law duty of care? A review of three recent cases, Victorian Law Journals. Oxbridgenotes (2014) negligence- Breach of duty. University of Sydney. P Latimer (2012) Australian Business Law, CCH Australia Limited, 2012. Souper M (2008) Sixth law Forum, Allied Maples Group v Simmons Simmons [1995]. Astley Ors V. Austrust Limited(1999). Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Electro Optics Systems West v NSW [2012] ACTSC 184. Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540, [149]. Paris v Stepney Borough Council[1950] UKHL 3. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980)