Due: Wednesday 24 June 2020 at 2 pm Sydney time Subject: Business and Corporate law Please give explanation wherever it required. It is very important. Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4...

Business and Corporate Law
Question 1:
(a) To establish whether Egeeay supermarket owes a duty of care to Barbara we have to consider the approach taken by Australian High Court on the below points:
1. It has to be judged whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant here Egeeay supermarket could injure Barbara who is the plaintiff.
2. We have to also judge whether there is a relationship which is vulnerable between the defendant and the plaintiff.
3. Finally, we have to verify if there are any policies which need to be considered which can prevent the defendants – Egeeay Supermarket being held liable by Barbara.
During the foreseeable test we have to check given the information will a Barbara anticipate that the act of Egeeay supermarket and its employees was to cause damage to particularly Barbara or to other customers.
Next to establish the relationship of vulnerability between Barbara and supermarket we have to discuss the theory of Occupier’s liability. As per the text (Gibson, 2018, p161), it is the duty of the occupier, in this case Egeeay supermarket to owe a duty of care to those who come on to shop or visit their property. Here, comes the issue of vulnerability or reliance of Barbara on the supermarket. We also have to analyze on the level of control that the defendant needs to do to keep the floor safe for the customers. This means the duty of the supermarket to be done with care. By analysing an old case of 1987, Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna, in High Court of Australia 7, it can be stated that it was the duty of Egeeay Supermarket to take proper care and maintenance of their interior as well as exterior premises for safeguarding the customers. Finally, we have to verify whether there are any administrative policies with regards to Egeeay supermarket based on which proper actions can be initiated against the employees responsible for such negligence in duty. Hence, based on the responses of the above three circumstances, Egeeay supermarket owes a duty of care to Barbara.
(b) To verify whether a breach of the duty of care was avoided by Egeeay supermarket or not we have to analyze the below:
1. Firstly, we need to know whether the supermarket authority knew about such events of risks or not and the manager of the supermarket was aware of happening of such spillage incidents or not.
2. Then we have to understand whether the risk was insignificant risk or not. Did Barbara really break her ankle? Does this fact carry a higher probability of harm on the customers of the supermarket?
3. Finally, it has to be determined whether the supermarket has taken reasonable steps or actions to avoid such risks.
The court will usually see how serious is the consequences of injury, the probability of the risk of injury and the social utilities of the activities which can cause harm to the customers in a supermarket. The court will be influenced by the seriousness of the injury and the damage happened to Barbara. Referring to the third point can be analyzed based on the similar case of Strong v. Woolworths Ltd of 2012, where a customer fell inside the Woolworth Ltd due to spillage of oil. The area was under the care of Woolworth Ltd and it was sufficient enough for the customer to sue Woolworth for a wrongful act of negligence.
(c) Had Barbara slipped on some grapes in the fruit section instead of pet section and caused injury by breaking her ankle, the actions of the court would have been same. This is because it is the duty and responsibility of the owner of the supermarket or the premises to keep it safe for visitors, customers and even trespassers. As per the policy of Egeeay supermarket it was the duty of the employees to keep check of the floor on every 15 minutes of the fruit section. Also, the manager of the store knew about spillage which happened every week in the green grocery section of the store. Therefore, it was the complete responsibility of...