Can Meghan and Catherine Sue for Negligence in Snake Bite Injuries?

Question 1
Both Meghan and Catherine suffered injuries resulting from snake bites. The question is whether
they can both successfully sue in the tort of negligence.
The success of a suit in the tort of negligence is determined by four factors which have to
be proved by the plaintiff in the case. First is the fact that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty
of care, then this duty was breached, third is the causation and lastly is damages. When
ascertaining the element of duty of care, the test is that the two parties have a relationship by law
and as a result, one party has a legal obligation to protect the other. A breach of duty is
established when the party fails in his or her obligation to protect. As for causation, the breach of
duty of care has to be the legal cause of the harms suffered. Finally, damages are the injuries
suffered as a result of the breach. A suit of negligence fails on the case of duty since there is no
definite relationship between the two employees of Australia Post –Harry and Will- and
Catherine or Meghan.
From the foregoing, it is evident that relying entirely on negligence as the cause of action
ould be a futile attempt. However, there are two causes of action that can be used separately by
both Meghan and Catherine that would successfully acquire damages. These are the doctrines of
strict liability and medical negligence.
Strict Liability
The doctrine of strict liability holds that an individual is held liable for their actions or
products without the plaintiff having to prove a reckless or negligent act on the part of the
defendant. In essence, strict liability negates the requirement of fault and all that the claimant
needs to prove is an occurrence of a tort and that the defendant is responsible (Schubert). Strict
liability applies to issues where the defendant has a responsibility and liability is imposed for