Business Law Assignment

(a) Dylan was shopping at Quills Department Store when he slipped on the highly polished floor and broke his leg. As a result he was out of work for four months and he incurred considerable medical expenses. His leg did not heal quickly or completely because of a hereditary bone defect which he suffered. Hence he had to take on lighter work, which did not pay as well as his former employment. i) What legal action is available to Dylan against the proprietor of the store, or the cleaner or the floor polish manufacturer The case states that Dylan incurred medical expenses due to slipping on the highly polished floor when shopping at Quills Department Store. This case applied to Australian common law, implied terms of negligence. The first issue is whether the proprietor of Quills Department Store is liable to Dylans injury. In order to determine, there are three steps must be satisfied. Firstly, if the proprietor owed a duty of care to Dylan need to be determined. The cases Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) HCA 5 are applied which implied that a retailer owes a duty to its consumers. In this case, Quills Department Store is an operating store. Dylan is a lawful consumer. The relationship between them satisfied the neighbour test for duty of care set out in Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. The normal rules of negligence applied to the case of property owners and person injured on the property. Therefore, the store owed a duty to take reasonable care to Dylan. Secondly, it is necessary to examine whether the proprietor had exercise the proper standard of care. The proper standard of care is that how a reasonable person would have responded to the foreseeable risk, to balance risks, consequences and cost. The weighing test is demonstrated in Wyong Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan 2000 FCA 1099, Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd 2002 HCA 9. Considering the high