Liability for Negligence in Case of Pet Owners

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