Topic: commercial law IRAC Report
A 1200 (+- 10%) word assignment on a problem question to be submitted electronically via Turnitin.
Tamara is addicted to chocolate. The only retailer that sells her favourite brand of chocolate bar is Aldi Supermarkets. Tamara goes to her local Aldi Supermarket every day to buy her favourite chocolate bar but it is often sold out. She gets very upset when this happens.
One wet Saturday morning in January Tamara is walking down the confectionary aisle of her local Aldi Supermarket and she sees at the far end of the aisle there is only one chocolate bar left for sale. She begins to run towards the chocolate bar. Another shopper appears at the far end of the aisle. Tamara runs even faster. As she reaches for the chocolate bar she slips on a puddle of melted ice cream and breaks her back. She spends several months recovering in hospital with general damages alone in excess of $700,000.
Tamara now wishes to sue Aldi Supermarkets in negligence for her losses. Aldi Supermarkets can prove that a staff member inspects the supermarket aisles and cleans up any spillages every 40 minutes.
This question answer depands upon IRAC method
According to my teacher the conclusion of this question is she can or cannot claim it depends upon situation.
I need you to do this structure like
Conclusion with the references intext and end of text and references for rules
Putting It All Together
Five Key Issues — Five IRACs
Issue 1 1. Does Aldi Supermarkets owe Tamara a duty of care? Rule 1 Application I Conclusion I
Issue 2 Rule 2 Application 2 Conclusion 2
2. Did Aldi Supermarkets breach their duty of care by failing to meet the standard of care?
Issue 3 3. Were Tamara’s injuries caused by Aldi Supermarket’s Rule 3 Application 3 actions and are those injuries not too remote? Conclusion 3
Issue 4 Rule 4 Application 4 Conclusion 4
4. Can Aldi Supermarkets potentially rely on the defence of contributory negligence?
Issue 5 5. Can Aldi Supermarkets potentially rely on the defence of Rule 5 Application 6 voluntary assumption of risk?
Commercial Law IRAC Report
Commercial Law IRAC Report
The case involves Tamara and Aldi Supermarket. Tamara was a chocolate lover and one day when she was going to buy some chocolate in the Aldi supermarket store she fell and broke her back as a result of ice cream spillage on the flow. She was admitted to the hospital and incurred expenses of up to $700,000. Therefore, she now wishes to sue the Aldi Supermarket for the negligence of her loss. This case analysis evaluates five issues relating to Tamara v Ali Supermarket to establish the issue, rule, application, and conclusion (IRAC) report.
Issue 1: Duty of Care
In these issues, there is a need to determine whether Aldi supermarket owed Tamara a duty of care. Also, the occupier and visitors rule applies to this issue.
The duty of care arises from the neighbour principle in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson .
Aldi Supermarket owes a duty of care to every person who is entering and leaving their stores. The duty of care exists since they are required to ensure the premises are safe for use. Therefore, their omission to consider the ice cream spillage is likely to cause harm to visitors in the stores. Also, occupiers have a duty of care to all visitors, and in this case, Aldi Supermarket is the Occupier, then owes Tamara a duty of care to maintain a clean floor free from spillage.
The facts of the Donoghue v Stevenson  suggest that Aldi Supermarket owes Tamara a duty of care since it was required to ensure there are no spillages of ice cream on floors which could have led to the injury of any customer.
Issue 2: Breach of Duty of care
Breach of duty involves the failure to act where a reasonable person would think it is fit to act. Therefore, the failure to clean the floor after spillage amounts to a breach of duty of care but the decision is up to the court to decide if the 40 minutes cleaning interval is reasonable to discredit a breach of duty by Aldi Supermarket.
The Civil Liabilities Act which provides for the standard of care. Precautions had to be taken as there was foreseeability that a wet floor as a result of melted ice is at risk of causing injury to customers in the supermarket.
Tamara’s injury was a result of melted ice cream on the floor. However, the supermarket cleaners needed to act reasonably by cleaning the floor since it was risky to leave the melted ice on the floor as it could lead to injury. The rule of the standard of care requires people to take reasonable precaution that would aid in preventing injury, and it was unreasonable for the cleaners to wait for a 40-minute interval to clean the floor when the premises are at risk of causing injury to a third party. Cleaners ought to be alert always to prevent the floors from being at risk of injury to everyone entering the supermarket. However, it is the court to determine the breach of duty of care.
The court is likely to find Aldi Supermarket in breach of duty since they did not take any precaution to ensure the floor is clean. With melted ice cream on the floor there if foreseeability of a risk of injury to occur to anyone entering into the supermarket.
Issue 3: Actions Leading to Injury
In this case, Tamara has suffered injury, and there is a need to evaluate what actions led to the harm. Therefore, these issues involve whether Aldi Supermarket is responsible for the injury.
The rule about causation in the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd  as well as a rule in Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Ship Steamship Pty Ltd  about the remoteness of an event. Causation means no harm could occur if reasonable steps are taken while remotes deduct that the consequence of an action is not only negligent, but there is room to consider there is a reasonable risk likely to occur.
Causation. If there was no breach of duty, no harm could have occurred. Therefore, since the spillage of ice cream on the floor was not cleaned. It is evident that harm could have occurred as a result of a breach of duty. Thus, Aldi Supermarket cleaners failing to clean the floor in due time, the melted ice cream was likely to cause harm. If the ice cream was cleaned, there could be no harm since there was foreseeability of the risk of injury.
Remoteness. A reasonable person is likely to know that melted ice scream spill on the floor can lead to injury. Therefore, customers in the supermarket were at risk of injury due to the ice cream on the floor. Hence the Aldi Supermarket caused the Injury. The risk of injury was foreseeable and reasonable steps had to be taken to avoid injury to customers (Goudkamp, 2017, pg.480).
The facts of causation and remoteness suggest that there was foreseeability of the risk of injury as a result of melted ice cream on the floor. Therefore, Aldi Supermarket was responsible for Tamara’s injury due to the breach of duty to clean the floor to avoid the risk of injury to customers entering into the supermarket.
Issue 4: Contributory Negligence Defence
The issue involves whether Aldi Supermarket could defend itself by because Tamara was careless as she ran to the supermarket. Therefore, had she not ran maybe she could not suffer the injury.
The rule in this issue involves the decision in the case of Imbree v McNeilly  about contributory negligence.
The rule in Imbree v McNeilly  suggests that contributory negligence arises where if one party is careless and suffers injury as a result of a careless act of the other party to that case, both are liable to negligence and damages are to be apportioned between the Tamara and Aldi Supermarket. Therefore, this means that both Tamara and Aldi Supermarket have cared less; thus both are liable for the action of injury.
Aldi supermarket can rely on contributory negligence rule since Tamara was also responsible for her injury for running into the supermarket. The damages are to be apportioned 50-50 for each party.
Issue 5: Voluntary Assumption of Risk Defence
Voluntary assumption of risk provides that no one can sue or blame another for personal injury as a result of risks involved. Therefore, these issues evaluate whether Aldi Supermarket could rely on this defence in the case against Tamara.
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Tamara was running into the supermarket carelessly as she did not even look at the floor to notice if there was a melted ice cream spill. Therefore, she cannot entirely blame the Aldi Supermarket for negligence in cleaning the floor (Edgar, 1972, pg.849). Aldi needs to defend themselves using the voluntary assumption of risk defence by claiming that by Tamara running she was aware that she could have fallen on the floor but only if there was no ice cream spillage.
The facts suggest that Aldi Supermarket cannot contend Tamara on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. Both Tamara and Aldi are responsible if the voluntary assumption of risk was to be considered since ice cream spillage could lead to injury and careless running into the store could also lead to injury. Therefore, the voluntary assumption of risk defence cannot be used to contend the case.
Tamara can sue Aldi Supermarket for negligence since there was a legal due to of care and failure to clean the floor resulted into a breach of duty of care. Aldi Supermarkets can rely on the contributory negligence defence in order to apportion the damages with the plaintiff Tamara. All in all, this a case involving accounts of negligence act on the part of Aldi Supermarket which led to Tamara’s injury.
Civil Liability Act 2003.
Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd  2All ER 402.
Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562.
Imbree v McNeilly  HCA 40.
Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Ship Steamship Pty Ltd  3 WLR 498.
Articles Law Assignment Help UK
Edgar Jr, J.H., 1972. Voluntary Assumption of Risk in Texas Revisited-A Plea for Its Abolition. Law Assignment Help UK Sw. LJ, 26, p.849.
Goudkamp, J., 2017. Breach of Duty: A Disappearing Element of the Action in Negligence?. The Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), pp.480-483.