Ethics and Law for Contributory Negligence By Expert Writers

Question: Discuss about the Ethics and Law for Contributory Negligence. Answer: Introduction: Any defendant who intends to take by act or omission must make sure that no other person is injured by him because of his actions or omissions. If there are chances of any injury then such act or omission must not be taken. This general concept is the theme of the law of negligence. However, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), every plaintiff has to prove three basic elements in order to hold the defendant negligent. The same are: (P Latimer, 2012) Duty of care Defendant must make sure that no plaintiff is hurt because of his acts and omission and these precautions in law is called duty of care (Electro Optics Systems West v NSW [2012]). But, the defendant can be hold accountable to provide duty of care only when the plaintiff is his neighbor, that is, the plaintiff is positioned at such a place so that any act or omission by the defendant will negatively hamper the interest of the plaintiff (Perre v Apand Pty Ltd[1999]. Also, the impact that is fall upon the plaintiff is reasonably predictable by the defendant. If such is the case, then it is the paramount duty of the defendant to provide due to the plaintiff (Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985]. Breach The breach of duty of care emphasized that the care which must be provided by the defendant is not provided up to the level that is expected from him. It is the non-compliance of the level of care that results in the breach of duty of care (R v Patel[2010]. (Atkins et al., 2014) Damages When because of the breach of duty of care by the defendant there is some kind of loss that is caused to the plaintiff then damages are said to be incurred provided the loss is because the negligent acts of the defendant and the defendant is liable only for predictable losses and not for remote losses (Carter V Walker(2010). (Souper M, 2008) All these element when provide by the plaintiff will make the defendant negligent in his actions. But, every defendant can reduce his losses under the law of negligence by proving the fact that it was the plaintiff who has contributed to his own loss. When the act of the plaintiff has along with the act of the defendant has caused injury to the plaintiff then the defendant is only liable to the extent of his wrongful actions and can reduce his liability by taking the defense of contributory negligence (Astley Ors V. Austrust Limited(1999). (McKendrik Liu, 2015) Application of Law Now, all the essential principles that are analyzed above are applied to the factual scenario amid Tamara and Aldi. Aldi is an owner of a store and which sells the favorite brand of chocolates of Tamara. Normally, Tamara is not able to buy the chocolates as they are out of tock. She is very desperate to buy the chocolates. On Saturday, when she was walking on the aisle of the store, she found one chocolate bar on the shelf. She was on the other end of the aisle and has to run towards the shelf to grab the chocolate. Sensing that there one more customer she ran swiftly but fell down as there was a melting ice cream on the aisle. In this current scenario, it is established that Aldi is the owner and the occupier of the store. Like every other defendant, the occupier of the premises has a legal obligation to keep the premises safe for his visitors. He has a duty of care that must be provided to his visitors, so, Aldi has a duty of care against Tamara. This is because; Tamara is the neighbor of Aldi. Both Tamara and Aldi are in close and proximate relationship because any act or omission undertaken by Aldi will defiantly fall upon Tamara as she is the visitor on the premises of Aldi. Also, Aldi can reasonably foresee the impact of his acts or omissions upon Tamara. But, this duty of care is breached by Aldi because the aisle upon which Tamara was walking is not safe because there was a melting ice cream that was spilled all over the aisle. Though the staff was cleaning the aisle in every forty minutes, but, this standard of care fall short of what is required in the given situation, keeping in mind the visitors entering the store. So, there is a clear breach of duty of care. Because of this breach of duty of care by Aldi, Tamara fell off and got hurt and faced damages of $700,000. So, Aldi has a legal duty of care against Tamara which was violated by him and because of such breach loss is faced by Tamara. So, there is negligence on the part of Aldi. But, Aldi can rescue himself by proving the fact that the injury might not have taken place or the level of injury might be low if Tamara was not running very fast (which was not expected by Aldi). Tamar was aware that running so swiftly on the aisle might cause her to fell down and sustain injury. Knowing the fact she still ran fast. Thus, she has contributed to her own loss. So, Aldi can take the defense of contributory negligence. Concluding remarks and suggestions Aldi is negligent as because of his breach of duty of care loss is caused to Tamara. But, Aldi is not liable for all the damages caused to Tamar because the loss caused to her is contributed by her because of her own negligence. So, Aldi can take the defense of contributory negligence. Reference List Atkins et al. (2014) Ethics and Law for Australian Nurses. Cambridge University Press. McKendrik Liu (2015) Contract Law: Australian Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. P Latimer (2012) Australian Business law, CCH Australia Limited. Souper M (2008) Sixth law Forum, Astley Ors V. Austrust Limited(1999). Carter V Walker(2010). Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Electro Optics Systems West v NSW [2012]. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd[1999]. R v Patel[2010]. Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985].