Understanding Tort of Negligence and Duty of Care in Australian Law

Enterprise Law

Table of Contents
Part A...............................................................................................................................................3
Part B...............................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................8

Part A
Facts of Case:
Harry and Will work at a mail sorting center of Australian Post Office, in suburban Sydney. One
day, they noticed a huge swollen parcel while sorting mails. Suspecting something dangerous or
illegal inside the parcel, they informed the police after keeping the parcel in an unlocked
cupboard. However, they were not aware that the parcel contained live snakes being transported
illegally. Before the arrival of police, the snakes escaped from the parcel and scattered
everywhere on the street as noticed by many people. A pedestrian named Meghan got heart
attack due to distress and anxiety when she saw snakes. On the other hand, Catherine was bitten
while trying to retrieve one of the snakes. She was taken to the nearest hospital and the doctor
administered a medicine but it was not effective against snake venom. Due to this, Catherine lost
her walking capability.
Issue: Whom should Meghan and Catherine sue in such circumstances and the possibility of
success if they sue under tort of negligence?
Rule: In order to use tort of negligence in this case, it is essential to understand what negligence
is? ‘Negligence’ is considered as a failure of a person to exercise reasonable care which results in
causing harm to another and should have been prevented by taking due care and precautionary
measures. However, the burden of proving the occurrence of negligence lies on the plaintiff. The
harm caused to the plaintiff should not necessarily be physical but it can also be financial harm
or damage to the property. It is recognized by law that actions essential to prevent harm are
referred as precautions and court determines the adequacy of precautions or negligence by the
defendant prospectively. Furthermore, negligence may arise either through an act or through
omission and multiple actions and omissions as well.