How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • Go back-and-forth until satisfied
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask james bruce Your Own Question
james bruce
james bruce, Solicitor-Advocate
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 4461
Experience:  Owner at James Bruce Solicitors
Type Your Law Question Here...
james bruce is online now

What law was used in v tesco ltd and its significance,

This answer was rated:

what law was used in ward v tesco ltd and its significance
JA: Where is this? It matters because laws vary by location.
[Plaint No.(###) ###-####
JA: What steps have been taken so far?
Customer: the appeal was dismissed
JA: Is there anything else the Lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured that they'll be able to help you.
Customer: i needed help understanding the legal principles of this case

Hello, I hope you are well. My name is***** am a solicitor advocate and I will be assisting you with your question today. I am very sorry to hear of the problem you are experiencing and I will do my best to help you with this matter.

Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd. [1976] 1 WLR 810, is a tort law case concerning the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"). It was a case of negligence and it set an important precedent in so called "trip and slip" cases which are a common occurrence.

It shows the Tesco breached its duty of care and therefore were negligent to the cause of the accident.

Customer: replied 10 days ago.
thank you. Please what is significant with the ruling

The significant factor here was that even though it could not be said exactly what happened, the fact that pink yoghurt was  spilled spoke for itself as to who was to blame. It was on Tesco property and they owed a duty of care.

Hello, I am just following up on your enquiry to see if I can assist further. Thank you for using Just Answer and for allowing me to assist you with your legal enquiry. Please do not hesitate to come back to me for further advice on this or any other legal matter. It will be my pleasure to be able to assist you again.

Customer: replied 9 days ago.

The Ratio decidendi (the reason" or "the rationale for the decision") is that yes, they had a duty of care. How the yoghurt came to be on the floor is not the factor, the item belonged to the store, it was on there floor and had not been cleaned up.

Customer: replied 9 days ago.
thank you very much for your help. please l have one last question. what is the OBITER DICTA in this there are 3 judges deciding on the appeal, l could not pinpoint the exact comment from each 3 judges

“Held: It was not for the plaintiff to have to show how long it had been there. This sort of accident did not happen in the ordinary course of events if the floor was kept clean and spillages dealt with as soon as they occurred. The probability was that the spillage had been on the floor long enough to be dealt with. Hence there was an evidential burden on the defendant to show that accident did not arise from want of proper care on their part. Ormrod LJ dissented.”

Megaw LJ said: ‘It is for the plaintiff to show that there has occurred an event which was unusual and which in the absence of explanation is more consistent with fault on the part of the defendants than absence of fault.’ and
‘When the plaintiff has established that the defendants can still escape from liability they could escape from liability if they could show that the accident must have happened, or even on balance of probability would have been likely to have happened, even if there had been in existence a proper and adequate system in relation to the circumstances to provide for the safety of customers. But if the defendants wish to put forward such a case it is for them to show that on the balance of probability either by evidence or by inference from the evidence that is given or is not given this accident would have been at least equally likely to have happened despite a proper system designed to give reasonable protection to customers. That, in this case, they wholly failed to do. Really the essence of counsel for the defendant in any possible argument – and he did not shrink from it – was: ‘never mind whether we had no system at all; still, as the plaintiffs failed to show that the yoghurt was spilt within a few seconds before the accident, she must fail. As I have said, in the circumstances of this case, I do not think that the plaintiff, to succeed, had to prove how long it was since the defendants’ floor had become slippery.’ Devlin J’s statement in Richards was not a statement of general principle.

Lawton LJ said: ‘Such burden of proof as there is on defendants . . is evidential, not probative. The trial Judge thought that prima facie this accident would not have happened had the defendants taken reasonable care. In my judgment he was justified in taking that view because the probabilities were that the spillage had been on the floor long enough for it to have been cleaned up by a member of the staff.’

Ormrod LJ dissented.he argued that they did not fail to take reasonable care, and in his words, the accident "could clearly have happened no matter what degree of care these defendants had taken."

I hope this helps.

Customer: replied 9 days ago.
thank you very much

Thank you for using Just Answer and for allowing me to assist you with your legal enquiry. I am pleased I was able to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to come back to me for further advice on this or any other legal matter. It will be my pleasure to be able to assist you again.

james bruce and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 9 days ago.
Customer: replied 9 days ago.

Your welcome.