Liability for Negligence in Case of Pet Owners

This case study discusses the liability of pet owners in case of negligence and the defences available to them. It also analyses the elements of negligence and the duty of care owed by pet owners towards others.

Business Law

1
Answer
Issue
The issue in this case study is whether Susan is liable to Cliff and Mary to pay them
compensation for the loss suffered by them caused due to the release of Benji? If Susan is
liable, then whether she can rely on any defences of negligence?
Rule
In situations where a party owed a duty of care towards another individual, then a suit for
negligence can be filed in case the party failed to do something which a reasonable person
would in the particular situation to avoid causing damages to the third party. The breach of
duty due to which another party suffered a substantial loss can raise a liability of the person
under the suit for negligence. The injury suffered by the party must be caused directly due
to the negligent actions of the party. Moreover, the damages which are caused due to
negligent actions of a party must not be too remote because damages can be claimed by the
party on for those injuries which are foreseeable (Tuck 2013). Negligence is often
considered as a difficult area of law because the court is required to analyse the elements of
negligence in a particular case while providing its judgement. The evaluation of the facts and
judgement of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 assist in understanding how a party can
sue for a suit for negligence. In this case, Mrs Donoghue ordered a ginger beer in the café
and suffered critical illness after drinking the beer. It was later found out that the beer has
remains of a dead snail and after drinking them Mrs Donoghue become seriously ill. A suit
for negligence was filed against the manufacturer of the ginger beer by Mrs Donoghue
(Twigg-Flesner 2017). The judgement of the court was given in favour of Mrs Donoghue.
The court provided that the manufacturer owed a duty which was breached due to
negligence and the illness suffered by Mrs Donoghue was the result of such negligence,
thus, Mrs Donoghue can claim compensation from the manufacturer. The court provided
that the first element is the presence of a duty of care. The neighbour test which
established, in this case, is used by the court in order to determine whether a party owed a
duty. The test evaluates the duty based on two elements; the first element is reasonable
foresight or risks and the second element is proximity relationship (McArdle 2013). A party

2
owes a duty of care in case the risks are foreseeable, and proximity exists in the relationship
between the parties. Based on this test, the court provided that a manufacturer owes a duty
of care towards customers while producing goods as given in the case of MacPherson v
Buick Motor Co (1916) 217 NY 382. The duty must be breached by the party due to failure to
do something in order to protect another party from an injury. Without breach of the duty
of care by a party, the suit for negligence cannot be filed. While determining the duty of
care, the court uses an objective test. The test focuses on identifying the fact that whether a
reasonable standard of care is maintained by the party which a reasonable person would in
the particular situation. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950) UKHL 3 case, an employee
becomes blind because safety goggles were not provided by the employer. The defendant
argued that there is no legal obligation to provide the claimant with goggles (Greene 2017).
The court provided that the duty was breached because the seriousness of the harm was
present and the risk was foreseeable as well. Thus, the defendant failed to ensure that the
appropriate standard is maintained regarding the security of the employees due to which
the claimant suffered a personal injury. Another example was given in Vaughan v Menlove
(1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467 case, in which the haystack of the claimant was burned because the
defendant did not take appropriate precautionary measures. The defendant provided that
as per his best judgement, the fire was not a major risk factor. The court provided that the
best judgement of a party is not enough and the party are required to take a standard of
care which is expected from a reasonable person (Duffy 2012). In the case of pet owners,
they are required to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken by them to protect other
parties from their pets; however, the court provided in Lopez v Trujillo 397 P.3d 370 (Colo.
2017) case that they are not liable in case the injury is suffered by the party due to their
own fears. In this case, a kid was hit by a van because two pit bulls barked and lunged at
him. Both the dogs were strapped to a chain behind the fences, thus, the court provided
that a reasonable standard of care was taken by the pet owner and the duty was not
breached (Leagle 2017). In the case of children, they are expected to maintain a standard of
care as per their age.
In Mullin v Richards (1998) 1 WLR 1304 case, a girl become blind due to the negligence of
another 15-year-old school girl. The court provided that a suit to recover the damages
cannot be filed because children are required to maintain a standard of care as per their age

3
(Bridgeman 2013). Another element is causation which provides that the damages suffered
by the party must be caused due to negligent actions of the defendant. If the duty of
breached by the defendant, but, the injury suffered by the party is not caused due to the
negligent actions, then a suit for negligence cannot be filed against a party. The court uses
‘but for’ test while determining that the injury would have been suffered by the claimant if a
standard of care had maintained by the party. In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
(1969) 1 QB 438 case, the court provided that although an injury is suffered by the claimant
but it is not the result of the breach of duty by the defendant, thus, thus, a suit to recover
the damages cannot be filed by the party. The court also used the test while providing the
judgement in Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952) 2 All ER 402 case. Furthermore, the damages
or injuries suffered by a party must be foreseeable because the court did not award
compensation for the damages which are too remote (Kotecha 2014). In the Wagon Mound
no 1 (1961) AC 388 case, crew members of a ship failed to close the tap of oil due to which it
leaked in Sydney Harbour.
Some employees were welding in a nearby Wharf, and they did not consider the fact that
the oil can be flammable. The oil caught fire which resulted in causing serious damage to the
Wharf. However, the court declined the claim for recovery of damages by providing that the
injury was too remote, therefore, the party is not liable to claim compensation. The court
evaluates all these elements to determine whether a party is liable to pay compensation
under the suit for negligence (Carr 2013). There are various defences available for the
defendant as well based on which the amount of damages can be reduced by the court, or
the liability can be eliminated completely. The defendant can rely on the voluntary
assumption of risk defences which provides that if the claimant has given his/her consent to
accept the risk, then a suit for negligence cannot be filed by him after suffering an injury.
The consent given by the party must be voluntary and given by the claimant himself without
any external factor. An agreement must be constituted between the parties regarding the
acceptance of the risk as given in Nettleship v Weston (1971) 3 WLR 370 case. Lastly, the
party must have the complete knowledge regarding the risk before entering into an
agreement with the party. Another key defence available is contributory negligence; if an
injury is suffered by a party partial due to his/her and partially due to another person’s
negligence, then the amount of damages can be reduced by the court as per the

4
contribution of the claimant (Murphy & Beh 2014). In Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) HCA 24
case, the court reduced the damage of the negligence by 60 percent based on the
contributory negligence of the party.
Application
Benji is a Bengal tiger, and she can easily cause damage to people, therefore, it is important
that Susan take appropriate care to avoid causing damages to others. According to the
principles of neighbour test given in Donoghue v Stevenson case, Susan owes a duty towards
Cliff and Mary because they live right next to her and the risk is foreseeable. A standard of
care is maintained by Susan since she ensures that Benji is locked in a strong compound
from where she cannot get out. The injuries suffered by Cliff and Mary were the result of the
release of Benji from her compound by Kim, the daughter of Cliff and Mary. Since Kim is a
kid, she did not owe a duty to maintain a standard of care based on which she cannot be
held liable for the damages as given in Mullin v Richards case. On the other hand, as a pet
owner, Susan owes a duty of care to ensure that Benji did not cause harm to other parties.
By keeping her into a strong compound, Susan ensured that a care is maintained by her to
ensure that Benji did not cause harm to another individual.
She cannot be held liable for any other outside factor which resulted in causing damages to
another party due to Benji as given in Lopez v Trujillo case. Furthermore, the damages
suffered by Cliff and Mary were too remote because Susan has taken appropriate care to
avoid Benji from causing harm to others, however, when she was not at home, Kim released
Benji. This was not expected by Susan, and the foreseeability of these damages was too
remote (Wagon Mound no 1). Since all the elements of negligence are not present in the
case, a suit for negligence cannot be filed against Susan. The duty which was owed by Susan
was not violated by her due to whom she cannot be held liable by the court to pay
compensation to Cliff and Mary for the loss suffered by them. Cliff and Mary did not have
any contribution in the occurrence of damages, and they did not enter into an agreement to
accept the risk, thus, the defence of contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of
risk did not apply in this case. Susan cannot rely on these defences, however, she is not
required to pay the damages to Cliff and Mary for the loss suffered by them since she did
not breach her duty of care.

5
Conclusion
Susan cannot be held liable by the court to pay damages to Cliff and Mary for the loss
suffered by them due to the release of Benji from her compound. Moreover, the defences
of negligence are not available in this case since Susan did not have to give compensation to
Cliff and Mary.

6
References
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 QB 438
Bridgeman, J 2013, ‘Unrelated Adults and Unaccompanied Children: Obligations, Risks, and
Responsibilities’, Child & Fam. LQ, vol. 25, p. 159.
Carr, C 2013, Course notes: Medical law and ethics, Routledge, Abingdon.
Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952) 2 All ER 402
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Duffy, MJ 2012, ‘Testing good securities disclosure: tales of the reasonable investor’,
Monash UL Rev., vol. 38, p. 25.
Greene, B 2017, Optimize Tort Law, Routledge, Abingdon.
Kotecha, B 2014, Q&A Torts, Routledge, Abingdon.
Leagle, 2017, ‘N.M. EX REL. LOPEZ v. TRUJILLO’, Leagle (online) 12th September 2018 <
https://www.leagle.com/decision/incoco20170626042>.
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) HCA 24
Lopez v Trujillo 397 P.3d 370 (Colo. 2017)
MacPherson v Buick Motor Co (1916) 217 NY 382
McArdle, D 2013, Football Society & The Law, Routledge, Abingdon.
Mullin v Richards (1998) 1 WLR 1304
Murphy, KL & Beh, HG 2014, ‘The standard of care and the assumption of risk defense in a
negligence injury case in a physical education class’, Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, vol. 85, no. 8, pp. 41-43.
Nettleship v Weston (1971) 3 WLR 370
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950) UKHL 3

7
Tuck, S 2013, ‘To the Rescue: Liability in Negligence for third party criminal acts in the
United States and Australia’, Ind. Int’I & Comp. L. Rev., vol. 23, p. 183.
Twigg-Flesner, C 2017, Consumer product guarantees, Routledge, Abingdon.
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467
Wagon Mound no 1 (1961) AC 388