The paper “ Legal Environment and Business Decisions” is a thoughtful example of a business assignment. Jean was a regular shopper at East End Four Corners Supermarket, which was part of a large national 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? ArgumentNegligence 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 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, a 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 a breach of that duty, and damage was inflicted. The salient features that make case for a case of duty are Reasonable foreseeabilityForeseeability in tort is in its tying human will through selection to the consequences of actions, and then we must ask why tort law views foreseeability 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.
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
Supreme Court of Queensland Decisions