The Store Staff in Coles Supermarket - Case Study Example

Business Law Name: Institution: Course: Lecturer: Date: It is clear that the usual routine of the store staff in Coles supermarket is cleaning the supermarket while cleaning up any spilt liquids as soon as they are discovered, and further checking for the spillages on opening at 6am and then at 10am, 2pm and 6pm. Though no staff is said to have been around the scene when the customer dropped a glass jar of honey, the sound of the fallen glass must have raised alarm to the store staff. Also, since the cleaning of the restaurant takes place around 10am and the event took place at 10.05am, the store staff must have been within the scene since the cleaning of the spilt drinks can take as much as 10 minutes. Also, since John knew the consequences of walking alone, leaving Mary behind is another point of concern in this incidence. Therefore, this paper will be establishing on whom and to what extent of the involved parties were negligent of their responsibilities. It is essential to establish whether there exists a contract between the employees and the Coles supermarket management. There was an agreement between the attendants and the management that the cleaning should be done daily at 10am, 2pm and 6pm. Also prior to the making of the employment contract, both parties had the intention of creating legal relationship. The contract was out of a free and genuine consent. The employer and employee (parties) are competent to enter into the contract. The contract had a lawful consideration with the agreements not being declared null, void or illegal. The contract entered by the parties had certainty of meaning and the possibility of performance. Since the above elements of a contract exist, then the contract between the parties is valid. This makes the employment contract between the employees and the employer to be valid. Therefore, the negligence portrayed by the employees of the Coles supermarket is a violation of the terms of service in their employment (Henderson 2002). It is also important to find out whether there exists a valid contract between Mary and John prior to the incident. Possibly, Mary and John had entered into a verbal contract with John to be a full-time carer responsible for his security. The two parties were competent and entered a contract out of free and genuine consent. The verbal contract had certainty of meaning and the possibility of performance. Therefore, Mary was irresponsible to allow John to leave her talking to a friend, bearing in mind that John was blind, without taking the necessary precaution to safeguard John from any injuries (Herrington & Carmichael 2007). Negligence in the scenario According to justice Lord MacMillan’s ruling in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], the first step is step is testing the actions in the involved parties to establish whether there was negligence of any of the parties that resulted to the whole incident. It is evident that the Coles supermarket had to ensure that the clients are secure and failure to do so, would be deemed negligence. The negligence would be as a result of any of its employees and this would plunge the Coles supermarket into being liable of the injuries posed to the clients out of the negligence. Also, the irresponsibility of Mary would be making her to be negligent of the responsibilities of being a full-time carer of John and this makes her also to be liable (Deakin et al, 2003).  Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532 Though Mary allowed John to walk alone that resulted to the injuries, it is hard to establish fully who was negligent- if any of them was. But, since the injuries happened to the client (John) in the business premises and the Coles supermarket is responsible for the security of its clients, it raises point of concern. It therefore, requires the establishment of whether the professionalism in hospitality industry holds that the Coles supermarket failed to follow to the standard recognized as appropriate by the responsible staff during the incident. According to Bolton V Stone [1951] any professional could have acted in a negligent manner (i.e. owing a responsibility of precaution that he hasn’t met) but if the actions of the Coles supermarket didn’t amount to loss, there would be no claim. Such a condition would be fairly common. But the injuries of the client were as a result of the failure of the staff cleaning the broken pieces of the glass make them liable of the losses. It is evident that if it weren’t not for the negligence of the staff, the client couldn’t have been injured by the broken glasses. Though the Coles supermarket was very busy, the staff had to ensure that the clients are safe inside the business premises, irrespective of the time of the day. Since the client, who broke the glasses, can’t be located by the management, then Coles supermarket is liable of negligence (Cupp and Danielle 2002). Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C: The 1951 legal case decided by the House of Lords which proven that a perpetrator isn’t deemed irresponsible whenever the damages to the claimant wasn’t a realistically predictable consequence of his behavior. There are some intervening acts like Mary allowed John to walk on his own, bearing in mind of the possible risk he was posing to himself, he also entered the supermarket. Also the cleaning duty roster indicated that the cleaner had cleaned the premise, five minutes prior to the entry of the John. Another intervening act is evidenced when the client broke the glass, kept quiet and left the broken pieces of glass spread all over the floor only to have John stepping over them and getting injuries. These intervening acts resulted to the injuries of John. These acts might make the court to reduce the penalties awarded to the Coles supermarket due to negligence. According to the law, a physically impaired person like John isn’t supposed to be conforming to any standard of conduct which might be physically dreadful for him to meet. Therefore, John should have acted realistically in light of his being blind, and it might be held that he might have been negligent in taking a risk, of walking alone, and this is not reasonable in light of his known physical limitations. According to Constantine v Imperial Hotels [1944], while establishing whether the negligence of the Coles supermarket was the proximate cause of the claimant's injuries, it is essential to focus on the foreseeability of the injuries that were as a result of the defendant's negligence. Since the client broke the glass and left it lying on the floor without alerting the staff, then the staff negligently allowed the broken glasses to lie on the floor without cleaning the floor, it is foreseeable that the broken glasses might result to injuries of other clients. Thus, the Supermarket would be liable for these damages. Constantine v Imperial Hotels [1944]: An English contract lawcase, regarding the implied obligation of an innkeeper to not decline accommodation to a visitor without fair cause.  It was held that the innkeeper had Defenses to negligence liabilities The findings in Jaensch v. Coffey [1984] yield that though the plaintiff (John) might establish that the Coles supermarket owed a duty to the litigant, breached that responsibility, and proximately resulted to John’s injuries, the defendant (Coles supermarket) has freedom of raising defenses so as to have reduction or elimination of their liability (Deakin 2008). Under the guideline of contributory negligence, both the plaintiff (John) and the defendant (Coles supermarket) could have avoided the injuries since John knew that he was likely to step on unexpected substances lying on the ground and it is for this reason that he had Mary as his daily guide. Though the broken glasses should have been cleaned immediately, John and Mary are also liable of negligence that resulted to the injuries. Therefore, the doctrine of contributory negligence might disable the plaintiff (John) from recovering from the suspect (Coles supermarket) whenever the plaintiff is negligent ( Simmons 2007). a responsibility of providing sensible accommodation and overruled that when the inn did offer to put Constantine at a different lodge, this was a fulfillment of that responsibility. Jaensch v. Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 578: Mrs. Coffey did suffer a panicky shock injury as following the aftermath of a vehicle collision though she wasn’t really at the scene when the collision occurred. The court held that, in addition to it being sensibly conceivable that his wife could also suffer from similar harm, it necessitated that there be satisfactory proximity between the complainant and the respondent who was the cause of the collision. In this scenario, there was adequate underlying proximity. Under the comparative negligence, the claimant's negligence isn’t a comprehensive bar to his recovery. In its place, the claimant's damages are minimized by the approximated percentage his own fault contributed to the injuries (Van 2001). Under the "50 percent rule" of comparative negligence, the claimant can’t recover any of the damages if his carelessness was equally much as, or more than, the negligence of the defendant. Thus this rule is partly retaining the principle of contributory negligence, and reflects the opinion that since the plaintiff (John) is perceived to be largely responsible for his own injuries is undeserving of recompense (Bar-Gill and Ben-Shahar 2003). The Wagon Mound’s Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty [1966] amounts to the assumption of risk defense i.e. the Coles supermarket can avoid the liability for their negligence if they would be able to establish that the litigant (John) willingly agreed to bump into a known risk resulting from the negligence of the defendant. This is evident whereby Mary becomes negligent by remaining behind talking to a friend and John proceeds with the risk by going into the supermarket. These actions account for the injuries caused on the client. Another essential question while establishing the assumption of risk defense is: in case there was a warning at the door of the supermarket warning the clients to keep off from the zone with the broken glasses, could the blind man (John) have got the warning and kept off? Therefore, John was contributorily negligent by entering into the Coles supermarket premises bearing in mind that he was risking his life (Buswell 1997). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty [1966] 2 All E.R. 709: The Wagon Mound, a vessel in Sydney harbor, oozed oil and this created a slick in the portion of the harbor. The wharf owner did ask the ship owner regarding the risk and was told he might continue his work since the slick couldn’t catch fire. The wharf owner did allow work to continue on the wharf, and this sent some sparks on top of some rags in the seawater and this kindled and caused fire that consumed down the wharf. In conclusion, though the Coles supermarket was negligent by not cleaning the floor with the broken glasses, the client’s (John’s) negligence contributed to the injuries. Therefore, the plaintiff can use the defenses by establishing the incidences of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and Assumption of Risk in the actions of the client. Also, the court has to establish that the Coles supermarket was solely negligent and the client’s (John) behavior wasn’t a proximal cause of the injuries. Since there are several intervening causes of the injuries, the claimant is also liable of the injuries and if possible, the Coles supermarket can either have reduction of penalties or exemption from the liabilities due to the above factors. The UK House of Lords held that the wharf owner did 'intervene' in the underlying chain, and created an obligation for the explosion that annulled out the legal responsibility of the ship owner. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES AND BOOKS Bar-Gill, O and Ben-Shahar, O 2003, "The Uneasy Case for Comparative Negligence."American Law and Economics Review 5 (spring). Buswell,F 1997, The Civil Liability for Personal Injuries Arising out of Negligence.Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothman. Cupp, L., and Danielle, P 2002, "The Rhetoric of Strict Products Liability Versus Negligence: An Empirical Analysis." New York University Law Review 77 (October). Deakin, S; Angus, J and Basil, M 2003, Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford University Press. Deakin, J 2008, Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henderson, A 2002, "Why Negligence Dominates Tort." UCLA Law Review 50 (December) Herrington & Carmichael, 2007, “Plain speaking legal advice”, Professional Negligence A Quick Guide! Available at www.herrington-carmichael.com. Mark, L; Ken, O 2003, Tort Law - Texts, Cases, 2nd Ed. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. Simmons, K 2007, “The Crime/Tort Distinction: Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives.” Widener Law Review. Van,G 2001, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. CASES Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532 Jaensch v. Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 578 Constantine v Imperial Hotels [1944] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty[1966] 2 All E.R. 709 Read More