Negligence Legal Services Commission

Question: Discuss about the Negligence Legal Services Commission. Answer: Introduction: A tort has been regarded as a civil wrong, other than the contravention of an agreement. And any failure to exercise the appropriate and principled ruled care which was owed towards another individual was expected to be exercised among the specific circumstances. Such circumstances could be regarded under the area of tort law as negligence. More specifically, an act of negligence could be observed to be described as a failure to act with certain extent of concern that any individual of common care would have implemented under the similar kind of situations. Also, the behavior of an individual in the normal course consists of actions, but also at the same could also comprise of certain errors when there was certain duty which was owed towards another person to act reasonably (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2016). It was the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 wherein the new law of negligence was recognized. In this case it was also stated in brief that in order to establish or make the assertion of negligence successful against an individual, the applicant requires to show that: The respondent owed a obligation of showing care against him; The defendant was in contravention of that obligation; The contravention of such duty have caused a injury; and The injury was not too remote (Find Law, 2017). In another case of 'Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman' [1990] a 'threefold test was introduced in relation to the duty of care. It was concluded that the injury which was caused to the plaintiff should be: Practically predictable There must have been a connection of closeness among the applicant and the respondent; and It must be reasonable, just and rational to inflict such obligation which the person owed. It could also be stated that even if the applicant have established that the respondent owed a duty towards the applicant, and he violated such duty. In such cases also the respondent has a right to raise some defenses against the issue of negligence that may decrease or eradicate his liability. Although, there has been numerous defenses against the act of negligence but in this case one of the defense which a defendant could take was the defense of contributory negligence. The defense of Contributory negligence could be established in such cases wherein both the applicant and the defendant were found to be negligent in performing their part of duty then all the damages would be separated amongst them (Find Law, 2017). Also, when the injured individual himself was found to be a part or have contributed to the cause of their damage then this defense would be applicable. Because the applicant was in failure to show sensible concern for his own security against the harm suffered. For instance, as a result of the act of the party who has suffered harm because of a slip or fall because of the failure to keep a watch out for their own protection where they could have been convincingly have been predictable to do so (CockBurn, 2001). It has also been acknowledged and established clearly that if a slip and fall takes place and as a result of that some harm was suffered (Taylor Scott, 2016); then there would be a discrete opportunity that the person who has suffered harm would make a assertion against the owner of an organization for costs claiming negligence and contravenes numerous number of safety regulations (Compensation Connection, 2015). In Jones V Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608 it was concluded that the applicant had made a contribution to the harm which he has suffered as it was practically predictable that his negligence bare him to the threat of being compressed (Bits of Law,2013). In another case of Pavlis v Wetherill Park Market Town Pty Ltd (2014) NSWCA 292 it was affirmed that a claim of an individual for carelessness against a shopping mall and its employees in deference of harms suffered as he slipped on a wet street became unsuccessful (Bannermans Lawyers, 2017). The claim was unsuccessful at both first request and on the petition because a sensible amount of precaution had been taken against the risk of an important person who slipped on the pavement (Tidbury and Stower, 2017). Also, in Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM KTP Nguyen Family Trust [2016] NSW 2016 it was concluded that it was clearly accepted that the speed of movement of the applicant have been a contributing factor to the fall and therefore a decrease of 10% in regard to the claim for contributory negligence was made (Lexology, 2016). So, in this case it could be affirmed and stated that as it was raining when Tamara went down to the confectionary aisle of her local Aldi Supermarket in order to purchase her favorite chocolate. When she reached there at the other corner of the store she saw that there was only one chocolate bar left which she wanted to purchase. It was then when she began to run but she increased her speed. As a result of which when she was about to reach for the chocolate she fell down on a puddle of melted ice cream and broke her back. So, it could be stated that there was a clearly negligence on the part of the store that they did not clean uop the ice cream from the floor. Bit at the same time as it was mentioned above that as a prudent individual Tamara would also have taken immense care of her own safety when she knew that she was all wet and her shoes basically. So, she must have taken care which she failed to take into account as a result of which she was found contributory negligent for the harm which she suffered. But it was specifically stated that the Aldi Supermarkets could have proved that a worker inspects the supermarket aisles and cleans up any spillages every 40 minutes. So, it could have been then established that the store took reasonable care for the safety of its customers. Conclusion Therefore, it has been advised to Tamara that although she could not held the store liable for the whole amount of harm which she suffered but she could hold them liable for the partial harm. As she was contributory negligent and have contributed to her own harm. References Bannermans Lawyers. (2017) Contributory Negligence In "Slip And Fall" Cases - No Control Over The Plaintiff's Own Action Or Inaction?. [Online] Bannermans Lawyers. Available from: https://www.bannermans.com.au/insurance/articles/public-liability/331-contributory-negligence-in-slip-and-fall-cases-no-control-over-the-plaintiff-s-own-action-or-inaction [Accessed on 27/1/17] Bits of Law. (2013) Negligence Partial Defence: Contributory.[Online] Bits of Law. Available from: https://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/study-note/degree/partial-defence-contributory [Accessed on 27/1/17] CockBurn, T. (2001) Duty of Care of Landlords of Residential Premises. University of Tasmania Law Review, 20(2), 206-222. Compensation Connection. (2015) Are Shopping Centres Liable for Customers Who Slip, Trip or Fall?. [Online] Compensation Connection. Available from: https://compensationconnection.com.au/2015/02/26/are-shopping-centres-liable-for-customers-who-slip-trip-or-fall/ [Accessed on 27/1/17] Find Law. (2017) Defenses to Negligence Claims. [Online] Find Law. Available from: https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/defenses-to-negligence-claims.html [Accessed on 27/1/17] Find Law. (2017) Elements of a Negligence Case. [Online] Find Law. Available from: https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html [Accessed on 27/1/17] Legal Services Commission of South Australia. (2016) Negligence. [Online] Legal Services Commission of South Australia. Available from: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php [Accessed on 27/1/17] Lexology. (2016) A slip up - shopping centre liable for slip and fall on wet tiles. [Online] Lexology. Available from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bdcef724-3c2e-482d-9d74-540bc1a44d6c [Accessed on 27/1/17] Taylor Scott. (2016) Slip and Fall At A Shopping Centre: Whos Responsible?. [Online] Taylor Scott. Available from: https://www.taylorandscott.com.au/slip-and-fall-at-a-shopping-centre-whos-responsible/ [Accessed on 27/1/17] Tidbury, R and Stower, C. (2017) Shopping centre and its managing agent not liable for a customers injury arising from a slip and fall on wet pavement. [Online] Find Law. Available from: https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5535/shopping-centre-and-its-managing-agent-not-liable-.aspx [Accessed on 27/1/17]