Legal Advice on Negligence Law for Damage to Property and Mental Shock

This document provides legal advice on negligence law for damage to property and mental shock caused by wrongful actions of defendants. It explains the three essentials of negligence law and how to establish them against the defendant. The document also discusses the duty of care, breach, and damages, and how a defendant can protect themselves by relying on the defense of volenti non fit injuria or contributory negligence. The case of Susan, who owns a pet Bengal Tiger, Benji, and her neighbors Cliff and Mary, is used as an example to explain the application of negligence law.

1
Contents
Legal advice................................................................................................................................................2
Issue........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Applicable Law.......................................................................................................................................2
Application of Law..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................7
Reference List.............................................................................................................................................8

2
Legal advice
Issue
i. Whether Cliff and Mary sue Susan for the damage to their house, mini-tractor,
chicken coop, and pool, and for the loss of the chickens and eggs?
ii. Whether Cliff and Mary sue for mental shock of being attacked by Benji and the
shock of the house fire?
Applicable Law
The law of negligence is a very important piece of legislation. It is a law of tort and aims at
compensating the aggrieved parties who have suffered losses because of the wrongful actions of
the defendants.
An act is construed to be a negligent act when an obligation of protecting the plaintiff is not
comply with by the defendant as per the required standard resulting in breach and causing
damages to the plaintiff (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]). A defendant is considered to be liable
under the law of negligence when the three essentials of the law of negligee are established
against the defendant. The same are: (Latimer, 2012)
i. Duty of care – A defendant should acknowledge that fact that no loss must be
incurred to the aggrieved/plaintiff because defendant’s actions. However, no liability
can be imposed on the defendant for every loss that is caused to the plaintiff (Anns v
Merton London Borough Council [1978]. The two required elements are:
a. Proximity – There is proximity amid the defendant and the plaintiff. The
proximity submits that the parties must be so connected so that the actions of the
defendant must make an impact on the plaintiff directly (Bourhill v
Young [1943]). There is should be nearness amid the two and both of them must
be considered to be the neighbor of each other.
b. Reasonable forseeability – It is also very necessary that the presence of the
plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable by the defendant (Home Office v Dorset
Yacht Co Ltd [1970]. If the defendant cannot predict that the plaintiff is spotted at
a position wherein he can be considered as his neighbor, then, there cannot be any
kind of duty on the defendant (Topp v London Country Bus [1993].

3
ii. Breach – There should be non-performance of duty by the defendant. When the
desired level and standard of care and protection is not met then there is breach. The
level must be measured as what a normal prudent man thinks in the given situation
(San Sebastian Pty Ltd v. Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (1987). The level of care caries with the situation, that is, if the
plaintiff is vulnerable then the duty is high, if the risk is high then the duty is higher
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014]. Thus it is the standard care which is
when not met results in the violation ((Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v
Refrigerated Roadways Pty Limited [2009]
iii. Damages – It is necessary that because of the breach there should be injury sustained
by the aggrieved/ plaintiff (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987). But,
it is not every loss that must be compensated by the defendant. The main elements of
damage are:
a. Causation – the injury caused is the results of the defendants actions otherwise,
such loss does not comes in the arena of negligence (Overseas Tankship (U.K.)
Ltd\. Moris Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (1961).
b. Remoteness – That the loss that is caused must not be remote in nature which
cannot be reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Damages which are remote is
not covered under the law of negligence (Lindeman Ltd V Colvin [1946]
A defendant can protect himself by relying on the defense of volenti non fit injuria by
establishing that the plaintiff injury is because of his own fault. The defense of contributory
negligence can also be relied by proving that the loss that is caused is because of the negligence
of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Application of Law
Susan is the owner of a land situated in Victoria, Australia. She has a pet Bengal Tiger, Benji,
and has requisites permissions to keep Benji with her. Benji and Susan work at the magic show
of Susan where the people of the local age care homes are fond of the performance of Benji. She
treats Benji as her small domestic cat.

4
It is submitted that Susan is found to be negligent on several accessions, but it is necessary to
prove all the elements of negligence against Susan.
Issue i
Susan and Kim
It is submitted that Susan is aware that Benji is a quite pet and generally does not harm any
person but she is also aware that Benji has a thirst for milk and has a desire to chase balls of
string. A string compound was built in by Susan wherein Benji is kept. She also acknowledges
the fact that keeping Benji is safe but there are people who might not agree with the same.
Now, Susan owns a duty of care against Kim mainly because:
i. Kim, a small child who lives the next day, visits Susan to meet Benji. Kim usually
plays with Benji when Susan is present. Thus, Kim and Susan share a relationship of
proximity as any act of Susan with respect to Benji might affect Kim directly. Thus,
Kim is the neighboir of Susan.
ii. Also, Susan can reasonably foresee the presence of Kim.
So, there is duty of care that is imposed upon Susan to not to indulge in any act that might harm
Kim.
It is found that one day Susan was not present and Kim has knowledge as to where the keys of
Benji compound are kept. Kim unlocked the door and at that time Benji pushed Kim at a side
and start looking for milk.
It is submitted that Susan has a duty to make sure that the keys of the compound must be kept at
a place so that it must not be accessible by any other person apart from her. But, the keys were
placed at a place where in a child, Kim, can also access the same. So, the level of care that is
expected from Susan was not met by her.
Because of such breach of duty, Kim unlocked the door and at that time Benji pushed Kim at a
side and start looking for milk.
Susan and Cliff

5
It is submitted that Susan has kept a tiger in her premises. Thus, it is her duty to make sure that
the tiger must be kept in such manner so that it does not cause any harm to any persons
especially to the persons who are living in her vicinity.
Father of Kim, Cliff, was also living next to the house of Susan. Thus, Susan is aware that of
Benji escapes then there are chances that he might cause injury to the neighbors including cliff.
Thus, Cliff and Susan are in the relationship of proximity. Also, the presence of Cliff is
reasonably foreseeable by Susan.
So, Susan is under duty towards Cliff and must take actions so that no loss is caused to Cliff
because of any acts of Susan.
But, there is breach of this duty on the part of Susan as she kept the keys of the compound of
Benji at such a place that it was easily accessible by a child. So, the level of care that is expected
from Susan was not met.
It is submitted that when Benji escaped from its compound he spotted Cliff who was marking
out a new vegetable garden with a ball of string and went to chase the string. Cliff was just
climbing onto his mini-tractor with the ball of string and did not see Benji coming. Benji jumped
onto the tractor to take the string from Cliff’s hand. Startled Cliff fell backward falling off the
mini-tractor, knocking the gearshift into drive.
However, there was no loss that is caused to Cliff because of the acts of Benji.
Thus, Susan cannot be held liable towards Cliff as no loss is caused to Cliff.
Susan and Mary
Mary was the wife of Cliff. She is also living adjacent to Susan. Thus, Mary is the neighbor of
Susan and is reasonably foreseeable by Susan. Thus, Susan owns a duty of care against Mary so
that no loss is caused to Mary because of the acts of Susan.
Now, by keeping the keys at a vulnerable position there was breach on the part of Susan.
It is further submitted that when Cliff fell backward, there was knocking of the gearshift which
result it in motion. The uncontrolled tractor ran through his house shocking his wife Mary, who

6
dropped a pan of cooking oil on to the cook top. This instantly caught fire and did considerable
damage to the house.
It is submitted that loss is caused to the house of Mary and Cliff. But, the damage to the house is
not because of the due to breach of Susan. The loss that is caused is too remote to be anticipated
by Susan or any reasonable person in the given situation. Also, the loss is not caused because of
the breach and thus there is no presence of causation.
Thus, Susan is not responsible for the loss that is caused the house of Mary and Cliff.
Susan – Tractor and pool
It is submitted that the tractor continued on its way through Cliff and Mary’s property, running
through a chicken coop releasing all the chickens, until it fell into their swimming pool causing a
great deal of damage to both the tractor and the pool.
It is submitted that Susan owns a duty which was breached by her. Because of the breach Benji
attached Cliff who losses his balance resulting in making the tractor in motion. Because of the
same the tractor run through a chicken coop releasing all the chickens, until it fell into their
swimming pool causing a great deal of damage to both the tractor and the pool. The chicken also
escaped and could not be located.
But, it is submitted that the loss that is caused to the tractor and the pool and chicken is the loss
that is not caused because of the breach on the part of Susan. But, the loss that is caused is
because of Cliff loosing it (unintentionally) and not because of the acts of Susan. So, there is no
causation. Also, the loss is too remote to anticipate.
Since the chickens could not be located it result Cliff and Mary could no longer have fresh eggs.
This injury is remote to anticipate and thus Susan is not accountable.
Thus, Susan cannot be held liable for the same.
Issue ii
Now, Cliff and Mary can sue Susan for mental shock of being attacked by Benji. Susan is aware
that of Benji would left open then it is not a normal thing as he being a Bengal tiger has the

7
capacity to gave shock to people. So, the damage of shock can be easily anticipated by Susan.
So, Susan must be held liable for the shock.
But, Susan cannot be held liable for the shock of the house fire. This is because the shock of the
house of fire is the loss that cannot be anticipated by Susan normally. This loss is too remote to
predict.
Conclusion
So, Cliff and Mary cannot sue Susan for the damage to their house, mini-tractor, chicken coop,
and pool, and for the loss of the chickens and eggs. They can sue for mental shock of being
attacked by Benji. But, Susan cannot be sued for the shock of the house fire as such loss is too
remote to anticipate.
Also, Susan can establish the Cliff and Mary are aware of the presence of Benji but still they
prefer to stay nearby and thus they have contributed to their own loss and thus rely on
contributory negligence.

8
Reference List
Books/Articles/Journals
Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law. 2012. CCH Australia Limited.
Case laws
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987).
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004;
Lindeman Ltd V Colvin [1946].
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd\. Moris Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (1961).
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014].
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Limited [2009]
San Sebastian Pty Ltd v. Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979 (1987).
Topp v London Country Bus [1993] 1 WLR 976