This report is about a case study of Sunil v Xerox, in this case the plaintiff was injured in a supermarket after he slipped and fell. This was because water had been brought into the supermarket by other customers since it had been raining.
The paper focusses on the tort of negligence and the occupier’s liability. The three elements of the tort of negligence are discussed in detail. The elements are that the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, there is a breach of that duty and that the breach of that duty resulted in the injury of the plaintiff.
The Australian Law is used to discuss the case and principles and case laws of other common law countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America are also used. This report gives the possible case that the plaintiff has and the defences that are available to the defendant. From all the facts provided, and with reference to the law, the case is then decided either for the plaintiff or the defendant on a balance of probability.
For the plaintiff’s case the plaintiff can argue that since he was a shopper in the supermarket, the defendant owed him a duty of care and had to ensure that he was safe. The breach of the duty occurred when the defendant failed to wipe the floor of the supermarket or failed to put up a warning, informing their customers of the danger that is in the building (read the slippery floor). The plaintiff can also prove that he was injured as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff can argue that since it was raining, the defendant could foresee the danger his customers were exposed to.
Using the occupiers liability the plaintiff can prove that he was in the supermarket legally and that the defendant who is the occupier has the duty to ensure the safety of the building.
There are defences that are available to the defendant. The defendant could argue that the plaintiff should have taken more care since he knew it was raining and that it was not the defendant’s fault that there was water in the supermarket. The water had been brought in by other customers hence it was not a case of vicarious liability.
In my opinion this is the plaintiff’s case. If a person comes to one’s premises and falls on the stairs because the floor is slippery, one will be liable because it is one’s house and the plaintiff is there legally and perhaps because of an invite. The plaintiff can, therefore, sue for damages because of the injuries he or she has suffered. This is because the elements of negligence have been proved and that the occupier of a building owes anyone who is there a duty of care. To escape liability, the defendant should have warned the plaintiff about the slippery stair case. On the other hand, if a person is at a public beach and he or she gets injured because of the negligence of another person, the injured party is not likely to succeed in a suit because the defendant does not owe him or her a duty of care and that the defendant is not in control of what happens at the beach.
Of the two scenerios, Sunil Vs Xerox falls under the first one hence the defendant supermarket is liable.
Bibliography
Emerson, R. W., 2009. Business Law. New York: Barron's Educational Series.
Latimer, P., 2012. Australian Business Law 2012. Canberra: CCH Australia Limited.
McGlone, F. & Sticikley, A., 2008. Australian Torts Law. Canberra: LexisNexis Butterworths.
