Legal Environment and Business Decisions - Assignment Example

Running Head: LEGAL ENVIRONMENT AND BUSINESS DECISIONS Legal environment and business decisions Name: Course: College: Tutor: Date: Case summary Jean was a regular shopper at East End Four Corners Supermarket, which was part of a large nationwide supermarket chain. She was there at least once a week and sometimes more often if the specials were really good. When Jean was there this week, she slipped on some grapes in aisle 3 and broke her ankle. Grapes are normally found in the fruit section of the store and the store was not sure how the grapes got there or how long they had been there. The store manager indicated that there were a number of spillages every week in the aisles in this store. Is East End Four Corners Supermarket liable in negligence for Jean’s injury? Argument Negligence is typically defined as the failure to apply the degree of care that a sensible, prudent person would have exercised under the conditions. This is called contributory negligence and demonstrates the "fault" origin that highlights this area of tort law. In Jean’s case, the first argument that needs to be explored is whether Jean’s misfortune was as a case of negligence on the part of East End Four Corners Supermarket. Jean being a regular shopper, who visited the store at least once a week, knew the general outlay of the store. In tort law, tort is a wrong mostly used in civil law, and negligence ranks among the most popular of this kind. We seek to establish that duty of care existed, there was breach of that duty and damage was inflicted. The salient features that make case for case of duty are Reasonable foresee ability Foresee ability in tort is in its tying human will through selection to the consequences of actions, and then we must ask why tort law views foresee ability in terms of what an actor reasonably should foresee rather than what the person actually does foresee. One might worry, that is, that holding an actor answerable for a consequence he or she did not foresee, even though a reasonable person would have foreseen it. (Owen,) this is the practice as everyone prudent being must have reasonable care to their actions and when their overlook this, they must be held accountable. Reliance The grapes were on the aisle, a position that is not for fruits. A walking shopper who knows the store and, the display counters supporting his notion has no business worrying about mix ups ion merchandise in the store. The supermarket management, in this case the defendant has the responsibility of ensuring the advertised display remains. Grapes on the floor of aisle 3 place the public in danger, and Jean in no exception. She walks gracefully just like all other times of her weekly shopping but this time something is different. Her reliance on a system supposed to be efficient places her under vulnerability and she gets injured. In this case, the res ipsa loquitur is applicable. Let us look at similar cases. McCabe Vs British American Tobacco Australia Services ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria, 11 April 2002) Rolah McCabe is an illustration where the plaintiff is never expected to trash the defendant’s defense, but that was the case. Rolah became addicted tobacco at the age of 12, back in 1962, way before there were any health warnings on cigarette packs. The first notable warning came way later in 1973, with the slogan, “cigarette smoking is a health hazard”. After years of smoking, she was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in 1993, at an advance age of 49. She argues that the defendant had been negligent in its manufacturing and advertising as it knew the nature of its products: they were addictive and dangerous to health. She continued with her argument that the company had targeted children, had taken no reasonable steps to reduce or eradicate the risk of smoking, and had ignored or publicly vilified results that indicated its dangers (John & Benjamin 2001). The breakthrough in this case was an internal lawyer for the defendant publicly revealed under oath that the company had destroyed lots of its internal documents on its retention policy, information considered negative evidence in this case. Ms McCabe’s claim needed not to be proved as the court struck out the defence, the ruling going in the favour of the plaintiff. She was awarded $700000 in compensation for damages, although she died a few months later. Our case looks similar to Ms McCabe in a few ways. The supermarket, just like BAT had failed to take measure to eliminate the risk involved in using their product. The supermarket is a supply chain that allows users to use their facilities that display products with the aim of enticing them into buying products. The supermarket has the responsibility of maintaining order, which in this case was not done. Reasonable order means that you can get grapes mixed with bananas or apples, but not in the accessories section of the store. The grapes being an isle a way gives no leeway of argument on the supermarket’s responsibility to its shoppers. A slippery object on the floor is most likely to trip someone and cause an injury, making the foreseeable risk not remote but highly likely. This falls under the non-delegable duty of care. This was not an obvious risk so the defendant cannot claim limited liability. Moreover, the cost of precaution was as minimal as the mix up could have been easily cleared by having regular supervisions of the store by attendants and management. To measure the standard of duty of case, we put this follow up questions: What would have been the general standard of care in stocking and order in a supermarket? Is it reasonable for such mix up in order to occur Was it in the reach of the dependant to avoid the accident? Pursuing Jean’s case, we have so far ascertained that the case is solid: the supermarket owes Jean, the supermarket did not act in due care. The risk is the negligence act by the supermarket. Jean is exposed to a slippery object on the floor of the store. In compensation cases, one cannot be paid for damages incurred by actions of one’s self or what we would call self negligence. Self negligence applies in a case where the claimant didn’t apply reasonable precaution in their conduct and got injured. However, the reasonable caution calls for foresight, which in Jeans case was not possible. How someone anticipate the presence of fruit in a non fruit section is almost impossible. For the case to be valid, Jean has to show actual damage. The court does not give verdict based on emotion or the perceived loss but actual loss must be ascertained beyond doubt. Damage to person means physical illness or injury. An example case, Lynch v Kinney Shoes (Australia) Ltd & Ors is a case involving a woman who tripped and fell at the platform of a shoe store in Queensland. The court found that the platform on which the plaintiff tripped was foreseeable that a customer could trip and fall and was a risk to visiting customers who could easily sustain injury. This categorised the risk as obvious and the plaintiff never received an award for compensation. However, when we observe the case, we take note that Jean’s case is not that similar. The grape was not at the designated place, there is no way of knowing the fruit was there in order to avoid the risk. On the other hand, the defendant had the duty to ensure the store is safe for users. Putting the defendant would easily take the obvious risk defense strategy. A risk is obvious if there is low probability of occurring and is not foreseeable. The considerations relevant to establishing this claim are many as they are personal attributes of the claimant. The defense is more likely to take Jean’s weakness and try to build their case. They will investigate her thoroughly to establish her shortcoming that can aid their case and cite them to a court to transfer blame on her. They could argue that a supermarket is a store with many products and a mix up in any of this is not a scenario incomprehensible. The fruit being in the non-fruit section means that some innocent shopper like Jean took it there and that why it was there. The store could support their case by citing the presence of attendant who are full time and ensure such mistakes do not happen. The defendant would come with evidence of its managerial operations and process to try and exonerate the claim of negligence. It would further assert that the presence of many shoppers make it difficult to ensure order at every instance, and Jean was just a victim of circumstance and self negligence as it was an obvious risk. In accordance with s14, a person is deemed to know apparent risk unless they can prove that it was not known to them. Jean’s case is pretty straight as there is no way she could have anticipated the danger involved in switching and mixing up floor arrangements in the mall. The manager is aware of spillages and admits that they have them weekly but offer no warning or remedy for the situation. The store’s manager statement supports negligence as a part of the case in the supermarket. Her case is validated by the fact that the defendant had not indicated any changes in the shelf labels, a factor that could change the case significantly if it were done. The defendant’s act is what caused Jean to trip and fall. He is wholly responsible for the accident and damage incurred. Jean was injured physically and she has suffered both emotionally and materially. The broken ankle means that medical cost were incurred in scans and dressing. Medical evidence must be given for support the claim of the injury, a case of how the injury has affected her job can easily be proven as a twisted ankle means she is immobile and the chores and duties that she used to do. Economic loss is incurred as she has to be resting until she heals, although this is tied to the Jean’s profession. The purpose of an award of damage is to serve as a fair settlement for an infringement and not to punish or cause retribution. This award in Australia deducts savings made on medical expenses and does not provide for pension settlements but one-off payments as settlement. In the situation Jean fell on the fruits’ section, the flow of the case would be different and the issue of foresee ability would be invoked. This would mean that the question of reasonable care by the claimant would not appear in a court. The best case would be to launch a case where a part settlement is asked, though the case is flimsy to say the least. The law reform (miscellaneous provisions) in New South Wales s9 of 1965 provides: “9(1) a) A claim in the respect of the damage is not defeated by the reason of the contributory negligence of the claimant, and b) The damages recoverable in the respect of the wrong are to be reduced.” (Paul, 2012). It is foreseeable that the fruits can fall to the floor and any shopper or visitor should apply due care to avoid being negligent. The contributory negligence case means that the Jean ought to have observed to see that the floor was clean of any product as the nature of the fruit, a circular one, can roll to the floor. It is an obvious risk in this matter that the defendant can assume that any reasonable and prudent person ought to know. Her case would have a weak basis. References John C.P. G & Benjamin, C. Z, (2001) The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 VAND. L. REV. 657, 727–28 Paul, L. (2012). Australian Business Law. 31st ed. CCH Australia Limited, NEGLIGENCE & FORESEEABILITY: Doctrine of Law or Public Policy http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/publications/speeches/underwood/negligence Supreme Court of Queensland Decisions http://www.worldlii.org/au/cases/qld/QSC/2004/370.html Read More