Negligence is a civil wrong, and a party can hold liable to pay for compensation in case another party suffered loss due to his/her negligence. A party can be held liable for negligence if the standard of care is breached by such party due to which another party suffered a substantial loss. The person who owed a duty of care and failed to ensure that such duty is maintained by him is liable to pay for damages under the suit of negligence if another party suffers any loss due to such negligence. While filing a suit of negligence, the court evaluates certain elements to determine whether the defendant is liable for negligence. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 case, the modern law of negligence was given by the court. Based on the modern law regarding negligence, there are certain key elements which are necessary to be present in a case which allow the party to claim for damages. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant suffered a personal injury which was a result of the negligence of the defendant (Van Rijswijk 2012). The claimant ordered a drink in a café and later become ill. The drink contained remains of a dead snail due to which the health of the claimant become serious. The court provided that the defendant is liable to pay damages to the claimant since she suffered the injury due to the negligent action of the defendant. The court provided that a duty of care must be owed by a party while claiming for negligence.
In O’Dwyer v Leo Buring Pty Ltd (1966) WAR 67 and MacPherson v Buick Motor Co (1916) 111 NE 1050 case, the court established that a manufacturer owed a duty of care towards its customers regarding the design and products of goods respectively. Moreover, the party against whom the suit for negligence is filed must breach the duty of care which is expected by him from the law. The injury suffered by the party must cause directly due to the actions of the defendant (Graham 2012). The damages for which the compensation is demanded by the parties must not be too remote or else a claim for negligence cannot be filed. These are certain elements which are necessary to be present while filing a suit for negligence. Firstly, in order to determine whether a person owes a duty of care, the court relies on the ‘Caparo test’. This is a relevant test which is used by the court to identify whether a person owed a duty of care which was established in the case of Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605. The test evaluates the closeness in the relationship between parties to identify whether a duty of care is owed by the party (Petrin 2013). The court evaluated the proximity in the relationship while establishing the duty of care of a party in the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) AC 1004. Moreover, in case of a psychiatric injury, the court relies on the ‘Alcock test’ to identify whether a person owed a duty of care.
The court provided that emotions or grief is not considered as sufficient injury based on which a party can claim compensation under the provision of negligence as given in the case of Hinz v Berry (1970) 2 QB 40. The duty of care must be breached by the party based on which the claim for compensation can be demanded by the party. While identifying this element, the court applies the ‘objective test’ to determine whether the person who owed a duty of care failed to maintain a standard of care. In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467 case, the court established the objective test based on which the court identify whether the defendant owed a duty of care. Blake v Galloway (2004) 3 All ER 315 is a relevant case in this matter in which the court used the objective test. In this case, the claimant was with the defendant and other friends, and they started throwing pieces of bark chippings (O’Sullivan 2014). One piece hits the eye of the claimant which was thrown by the defendant, and he suffered a serious injury. The claimant filed a claim for negligence to claim compensation for the injury suffered by him. The defendant provided that the defense based on the principle of volenti non fit injuria. The argument of the claimant was accepted by the trial court, and it was held that the compensation should be reduced by 50 percent. The defendant appeal against the order in the Court of Appeal and such appeal was allowed.
The court provided that the actions of the defendant were not reckless which did not amount to a degree of carelessness. Thus, the defendant is not liable for the injury suffered by the claimant. Furthermore, the damages which are suffered by the party must be caused directly due to the negligent actions of the defendant. In order to establish this element, the court applies the ‘but for’ test which was given in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 QB 428. The court uses the test to identify whether a party would have suffered the damages in case the defendant would not have breached his duty (Farrell, Price & Quigley 2011). The test establishes a direct connection between the negligent actions of the defendant and the injury suffered by the claimant. The court applied this test in the case of Cox v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952) 2 All ER 402 in which the court provided that the employer has breached his duty of care since the damages were foreseeable and the injury suffered by the claimant was caused directly due to the negligent action of the defendant. Furthermore, the court provided that the ‘but for’ test is a negative test; however, it is helpful in identifying whether the negligent actions of the party resulted in causing the injury suffered by the claimant. The last element of establishing a suit of negligence is that the damages must not be too remote because a party cannot claim compensation for the damages which are not foreseeable. The Wagon Mound no 1 (1961) AC 388 is a relevant case in order to under this point.
In this case, the party who suffered the loss were not able to claim for compensation because the damages were too remote. In this case, the oil tap in a ship was left open by the negligence of workers and due to which the oil spread in Sydney Harbour. Some employees who were working on a wharf through that the oil is not flammable, and they kept welding on the wharf. The oil caught fire, and it resulted in damaging the wharf. The parties suffered a substantial loss, however, the court provided that the damages suffered by the parties are too remote which are not foreseeable based on which they are not liable to claim for the damages. The principle established in this case was applied by the court in the case of Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company (1964) 1 QB 518. In this case, an accident occurred due to negligence because the lib of asbestos was knocked down due to a negligent act which comes in contact with cauldron of molten liquid due to which an explosion occurred (Barker 2014). While this accident occurred, the claimant was standing close to the area due to which he suffered burns. At the time of the accident, the fact that asbestos causes react in this way to cause an explosion was not known. The court provided that the damages which are suffered by the party are too remote because it was not foreseeable that the explosion will occur in case such chemicals came in contact with each other. Thus, the court provided that the claimant is not liable to claim for damages.
In the present scenario, Susan kept a Bengal tiger named Benji in her house which she uses in her show. Although Susan kept her in a strong compound, she got out because the neighbour’s daughter Kim unlocked her compound. Benji runs near Cliff that startled him due to which his tractor went loose and caused serious injury to his house. Both Cliff and Mary suffered serious loss because Benji was out of her compound. In order to file a suit against Susan, Cliff and Mary are required to determine whether the elements of negligence are present in the case or not. Firstly, it is important to determine whether a duty of care is owed by Susan or not. In order to identify this factor, the Caparo test can be applied. Benji is a Bengal tiger which can cause serious injury to anyone and people can get into shock by seeing her. Moreover, Cliff and Mary were the neighbours of Susan based on which they have a close relationship with Susan. Thus, Susan owes a duty of care to ensure that a standard of care is maintained by her in order to avoid causing injury to her neighbours or anyone else. However, in this case, Susan has maintained her duty of care because she always kept Benji in her compound to avoid causing harm to anyone.
Moreover, the compound is strong enough to hold Benji in based on which she cannot cause harm to anyone. It was Kim who let Benji out of her compound. Susan was not present in the house, and it was the duty of Cliff and Mary to ensure Kim did not go wandering around since she is a kid who did not understand what is right or wrong. Benji went out of her chamber, not because of the negligence actions of Susan; instead, she got out because Kim let him out. Susan was not present at the time, and she has kept Benji in her compound based on which she has fulfilled her duty of care. Thus, Susan cannot be held liable for breach of the duty of care without which a suit for negligence cannot be filed by Cliff and Mary against him. The damages suffered by Cliff and Mary did not cause directly due to the breach of duty by Susan based on which she cannot be held liable for the damages suffered by Cliff and Mary. Therefore, they cannot hold Susan liable, and they cannot demand compensation from her for the loss suffered by them.
Conclusion
From the above observations, it can be concluded that Cliff and Mary cannot file a suit of negligence against Susan because she did not breach her duty of care. The injuries suffered by Cliff and Mary did not cause due to the negligence of Susan, instead, it was Kim who let Benji out which resulted in causing damages to them. Thus, Cliff and Mary cannot claim compensation from Susan for the loss suffered them because she did not breach her duty of care due to which a suit of negligence cannot be formed.
References
Barker, D 2014. Law made simple, Routledge, Abingdon.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 QB 428
Blake v Galloway (2004) 3 All ER 315
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605
Cox v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952) 2 All ER 402
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company (1964) 1 QB 518
Farrell, AM, Price, D & Quigley, M 2011, Organ shortage: ethics, law and pragmatism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Graham, K 2012, ‘Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations’, Santa Clara L. Rev., vol. 52, p. 1241.
Hinz v Berry (1970) 2 QB 40
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) AC 1004
MacPherson v Buick Motor Co (1916) 111 NE 1050
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring Pty Ltd (1966) WAR 67
O’Sullivan, L 2014, ‘Money for Nothing and Cheques for Free: Negligence and the Perceived Compensation Culture’ UK L. Student Rev., vol. 2, p. 74.
Petrin, M 2013, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: C handler v C ape plc’ The Modern Law Review, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 603-619.
The Wagon Mound no 1 (1961) AC 388
Van Rijswijk, H 2012, ‘Neighbourly Injuries: Proximity in Tort Law and Virginia Woolf’s Theory of Suffering’, Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 20, no, 1, pp. 39-60.
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download