Analysis of Negligence in the Case of Susan and Cliff and Mary

Contents
Solution............................................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Applicable Law............................................................................................................................2
Application of law........................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Reference list...................................................................................................................................6

Solution
Issue
i. Whether Cliff and Mary claim anything from Susan under the law of negligence?
ii. Whether there are any defenses that can be raised by Susan in order to protect her
position?
Applicable Law
The law of negligence is applicable in the give situation.
In Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], the law of negligence was rightly established and it was held
that when the defendant who owns a duty of care against the plaintiff failed to comply with such
duty, then, it is necessary that some harm must be caused to the plaintiff in order to make the
defendant liable under the law of negligence. The three main elements that are required to make
any defendant liable for negligence are: (Gibson and Fraser 2014)
i. Duty of care – Every defendant when comply with any of his actions or any of his
omissions then it is his responsibly to make sure that nothing must be done by him so
that it hampers the result of the plaintiff. Now, the main concern is understand as to
against whom the duty is imposed. The duty is not imposed against each and every
plaintiff but there are two requirements that must be met in order to make defendant
duty bound against defendant (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936).
Neighborhood principle – it is necessary that the defendant and the plaintiff must be
neighbors of each other, a person is considered to be the neighbors when the acts of
the defendant will hamper the plaintiff without any intervention Liverpool Catholic
Club Ltd v Moor [2014]. The parties are so connected and are in proximate with each
other that it is the duty of the defendant to make sure that nothing harmful is caused
to the plaintiff because of the acts of the defendant Chapman v. Hearse (1961)..
Reasonable foreseeability – A plaintiff is considered to be the neighbor of the
defendant and the defendant is only duty bound provided the plaintiff against whom
the duty is casted is reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If the plaintiff cannot be
foresee by the defendant then there is no duty on the defendant to provide any kind of
protection to the plaintiff Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980). (Latimer, 2012)
ii. Breach of duty of care – now, as soon as the principle of neighborhood is comply
with and the plaintiff is reasonably foreseeable by the defendant the it is his duty to
make sure that no loss is caused to the plaintiff because of his actions or omissions.
But, it is also submitted that when this duty of care is not met by the defendant as
expected from him, then, there is breach of duty of care. Now, the breach of duty is
not incurred when the level and degree of protection that is needed from the

defendant in the given situation is not met by him, then, such duty is considered to be
violated Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951).
iii. Loss – it is also necessary that there must be some loss that is caused to the plaintiff
in order to make the defendant liable under the law of negligence. It is established
that the loss that is caused must be because of the breach of duty of care on the part of
the defendant, if the loss is caused because of any other reason than such loss does
not comes in the preview of the negligence (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v.
Zaluzna (1987). Also the loss that is caused to the plaintiff was reasonably
foreseeable by the defendant, defendant is aware that of he will result in any kind of
breach to the duty of care then there are full chances that some loss might be incurred
to the plaintiff Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962].
It is submitted when all the three ingredients are comply with then the defendant is found to
be negligent in his actions.
However, if the defendant can prove that the damage that is caused to the plaintiff is not
because of the negligence of the defendant also but the damage is result of the negligent acts
on the part of the plaintiff as well then the defense of contributory negligence can be raised
and the defendant is not liable for the loss that is caused because of the negligence of the
plaintiff.
Application of law
The law that is stated above is now applied in the given situation. There are two main issues that
are raised and both of them are now analyzed here: The initial fact submits that Benji is a Bengal
tiger which is raised by Susan since the time he was a cub. He was very docile and does not harm
anybody. The only thing he is vulnerable and attracted to is milk and to chase the balls of string.
Susan treats him like a domestic cat and has also uses her in magic shows. Susan has all the
permissions to keep Benji.
Issue 1
In order to understand whether Cliff and Mary can sue Susan for the losses suffered by them, it is
necessary to understand whether Susan is found to be liable under all the three ingredients of the
law of negligence:
a. Is Susan owns duty of care – Susan is the owner of Benji. A duty of care can be imposed
on Susan against Cliff and Mary if it can be proved that the two main ingredients of duty
of care, that is, proximity and foreseeability exists.
It is submitted that Cliff and Mary are the neighbors of Susan. Benji is not a normal
animal that is kept by Susan although she has the requite permits to keep the tiger with
her. However, she is aware, considering the basis nature of a tiger, that if Benji at any