Examining Pilot's Duty Under Tort Law: Animal Welfare and Negligence

This essay examines the legal implications of a pilot's decision to continue a flight despite knowing that the cargo hold's heater malfunctioned, posing a risk to the animals onboard. It delves into the principles of tort law, including duty of care, negligence, and potential liabilities such as strict and vicarious liability. The analysis considers whether the pilot's actions constituted a breach of duty, leading to harm to the animals, and explores potential claims for economic and non-economic damages. The essay concludes that the pilot may face strict liability due to negligence, emphasizing tort law's role in protecting welfare and providing recourse for harm caused by others' actions. Desklib offers a range of study tools and solved assignments for students.

Legal writing I-writing assignment

Tort refers to the activities of the person which leads to an adverse impact on the others.
However there is a difference between the crime and tort, as tort is raised due to the breach of
duty of the person, but sometimes tort also leads to the crime (Van Dam, 2015).
There are several kinds of torts, namely intentional and unintentional. Intentional tort means, due
to the deliberate actions of the person, another party get injured. The most widespread torts are
medical malpractice, car accidents, and claims that are dependent on the negligence of a precise
person or unit (Goldberg, Sebok, and Zipursky, 2016).
Commonly, a claim in Tort is focused on acquiring a monetary compensation in against of harm
or damage that is done by the person (tortfeasor) who committed the “tortious act”. If the
tortfeasor is found to be at fault for the injury, then they are expected to pay the financial
compensation personally, though some injuries or damages will be covered by the insurance of
the at-fault party. This payment is intended to also act as a deterrent to those who commit
tortious acts, though would not typically be described as a “punishment” in the context of a
criminal matter.
The present study is related to the duty of the pilot with respect to the animals. In this case, even
though the pilot knew that the condition of the animal was not good and it was very risky to hold
the pets in the cargo even there a chance of living was also very less if the flight did not hold.
Then also the pilot did not lend the flight because due to the delay of the passenger. Moreover, at
last, all the pets died.
According to the general principles of the tort law, if the person did not exercise reasonable steps
to save the animals or due to the negligence of the person the animal get the harm, then the
person becomes liable. Further, the person becomes also liable under the Nuisance. In this case,

if the person is possessing and maintaining the animal in a wrongful manner with the right of the
public, then also the liability on the person arises (Arlen, 2017).
Further, the duty of care is the main element of the tort. The person cannot be harmed at the cost
of another party. In other words, it can be said that, just because the activities were harmful to
one person it does not means that another party should compensate for this. The person must
exercise a degree of care for the protection of the other party through reasonable care.
For determining the negligence of the person, some elements must be present such as the
presence of duty, willing full act or the omission which leads to the breach of duty, adverse
impact on the other party and the damage (Robbennolt, and Hans, 2016). In this case, it was the
duty of the pilot to take care of the pets, since only for preventing the undue delay of the
passengers the pilot did not hold the flight and so that the pets died. Moreover, it was considered
as the intentional tort by the pilot, because the pilot already knows about that if the flight
continued than the chances of living the pets was very less. Therefore the intentional act leads to
the breach of duty by the pilot and the pets got died. The plaintiff may claim the damages for the
economic loss as well as non-economic loss. The non-economic loss damage is decided by the
court.
Further, the tort law provides strict liability and vicarious liability. For the imposition of the strict
liability, the plaintiff has to give evidence that the tort occurred due to the breach of duty or the
omission by the defendant. The vicarious liability arises when due to the act of some person the
third party become responsible for the breach of duty by that person. Generally, it arises in the
employer and employee relationship.

On the basis of the above analysis, it can be concluded that tort law provides the benefit to the
person who gets harmed by the other person’s negligence, intentional act or by the omission. It
assists in the protection and the welfare of the society. In the present case, strict liability will be
applicable to the pilot, since due to the negligence of the pilot all the pets harmed.

REFERENCES
Arlen, J., 2017. Economics of Tort Law. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume
2: Private and Commercial Law, p.41.
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P., 2016. The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology
and Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham.
Van Dam, C., 2015. Human rights obligations of transnational corporations in domestic tort
law. Human Rights and Business: Direct Corporate Accountability for Human Rights, pp.475-
497.