Business Law Case: Evaluating Negligence and Proximate Cause

This case study analyzes a potential negligence claim against Susan, the owner of a Royal Bengal tiger named Benji, for damages caused to her neighbors, Mary and Cliff. The analysis applies legal principles of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, referencing key cases such as Donoghue v. Stevenson and Perre v Apand. The study assesses whether Susan owed a duty of care to Mary and Cliff, whether she breached that duty by failing to secure Benji adequately, and whether her actions directly caused the damages suffered, including property damage and mental distress. The conclusion determines that while Susan may be liable for some damages, such as the tractor damage and mental distress, other damages like the fire and loss of chickens may be too remote to establish causation. Desklib offers this and many other solved assignments for students' reference.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Issue
Do Mary and Cliff hold the right to claim against Susan for negligence for the damage that
has been caused to them with regards to the property they hold?
Rule
Negligence means an individual fails to take reasonable care so that he can avoid causing
damage or harm to another person. In order to prove negligence, there are four steps that the
plaintiff has to prove and they are as follows:
 Duty of care
 Breach or violation of duty
 Damage and
 Causation
There are two cases that have discussed the rules of the negligence in Australia and they are
Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant [1933] 50 C. L. R. 387 and the eminent English
case Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562. The court had stated in these cases that a
prudently predicted damage will help in the growth of duty of care. Prudently predicted
damage is determined impartially. This states that the defendant does not have to reasonably
predict the damage, but a prudent person has taken the place of the defendant. Certain
features are there that a prudent individual may consider predicting the damage (Stickley
2016). These features include proximity and closeness to the damaged individual with the
respondent. Furthermore, it has to be taken into consideration that the applicant who was
injured is not the matter of purpose, if any individual who would have been in the place of the
applicant would have suffered the same loss.

2
BUSINESS LAW
According to the case of Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180, the elements that are required
to be considered for determining the duty of care are the factors like degree of closeness and
proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff, certain example cases where a duty was
identified, an individual’s ability to control damage and any kind of legal policy that asks to
enforce a duty.
As per the case of Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven & Co 174 NE 441 (1931),a rule was
made by the judges that no duty of care will be there in the circumstances that leads to the
legal responsibility in time, amount and class that is not uncertain (Porter 2017). The
provisions formed by the judge means that though a duty of care might be identified in
theory, if this duty will lead to the uncertain factors then the court will deny this.
The factors of the breach of duty need analysis following to the identification of the duty. The
tests that have been deployed to study the violation include likelihood and seriousness of the
damage, social utility of the activity and burden of taking care.
“Objective Test” is that test that has been taken to study the breach. A reasonable person has
taken the place of the respondent for the study to see if the care that has been taken is
prudent. In the given case Blake v Galloway [2004] 3 All ER 315, this test has been applied.
Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 is that case that has dealt with the rule of possibility of the
damage. According to the given case, it can be explained that if the chances of the damage is
high in case he or she fails to take care reasonably then the duty will be violated (Stark 2016).
On the other hand, if the chances are low regarding that the prudent person will forget the risk
then this failure will not lead to the violation of the duty.
According to the case of Latimer v. AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643, the provisions for burden of
taking care were discussed. It was cleared by the court that the duty enforced on the person

3
BUSINESS LAW
by law on an individual to take “protection that is reasonable”, if reasonable care are taken
and damage is caused then no negligence will be there.
The last factor of injury or damage is “causation”. The “but for” test is the basic test for study
of the approval of this factor (Hodgson 2016). This test gives an individual who holds the
“duty of care” and violating that duty will not be legally responsible for the negligence if the
damage to whom the respondent is subjected to have been caused irrespective of the violation
of duty. In the given case Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428, the
court stated that a doctor who violated his “duty of care” was not said to be negligent because
the patient would as it is die even after there was no violation of the duty. In the case of Cork
v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402 the rules of this test was used and it was cleared
that if the damage will not be present or if a certain act was not there then the act will be the
genuine reason for the injury.
In addition, according to the case Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock &
Engineering Co Ltd [1961] AC 388, it can be stated that the causation factor will not be
fulfilled if the injury or the damages that are “too remote” ( Foley and Christensen 2016).
This phrase means even the causation have been led by the violation of the duty, an
individual who is reasonable be able to predict the damage and not predict the above
mentioned term to prove the causation factor.
Various kinds of damages are there that an individual in case of negligence might be
subjected to and it includes property and physical injury, genuine economic injury and mental
injury. If all the factors of negligence are seen and it is given in the court then the court will
look after the calculation of penalties (Colvin, McKechnie and O’Leary 2015). Any kind of
legal price that has been taken by the applicant is also included in the damages. According to

4
BUSINESS LAW
the case Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 40, these rules were stated by
the court.
Application
Susan is the owner of the royal Bengal tiger Benji. Susan hosts magic shows and Benji has
been used for it. As Benji has docile nature, she does not take him to be dangerous for the
society. As human beings have the nature of getting feared, Susan lives with Benji in an
isolated area. As per the provisions of the vicarious liability, Susan will be responsible if any
kind of injury is caused to Benji because she is the possessor. When the cases like Donoghue
v. Stevenson are being implemented in this circumstance it can be explained that a prudently
predicted damage will help in the growth of “duty of care”. Prudently predicted damage is
determined impartially. This states that the defendant does not have to reasonably predict the
damage, but a prudent person has taken the place of the defendant. Therefore, the mindset of
the respondent does not matter to the court and in a similar manner what thinking has Susan
about her tiger Benji causing harm is not the issue, but the thinking of the person who is
reasonable matters to the court. According to the case of Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180,
the elements that are required to be considered for determining the duty of care are the factors
like degree of closeness and proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff. In this present
case Mary and Cliff are in the close proximity to the tiger Benji as they are their neighbours.
Furthermore, the argument that was given by the case Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven &
Co will not be related because responsibility in time, amount and class that is not uncertain.
Thus, this study concludes that a “duty of care” is owed to Mary and Cliff by Susan.
In this part of the assignment the objective test will be used to study the breach of “duty of
care”. The factors of the breach of duty need analysis following to the identification of the
duty. The tests that have been deployed to study the breach include likelihood and

5
BUSINESS LAW
seriousness of the damage, social utility of the activity and burden of taking care. According
to the case Blake v Galloway, the violation of duty will be examined in a proper manner.
Therefore, the matter is not the thinking of Susan about the reasonable care but the thinking
of the person who is reasonable matters to the court. The thinking of a person who is
reasonable can be examined by establishing the case Bolton v. Stone in regards with the
chances of the damage. According to this case, it can be explained that if the chances of the
damage is high in case of the failure to take care reasonably then the duty will be violated. On
the other hand, if the chances are low regarding that the prudent person will forget the risk
then this failure will not lead to the violation of the duty. Therefore, it will be possible for a
person to be reasonable to predict if prudent care with regards to Benji has not been taken
then the possibility is there to cause harm. Furthermore, it can be explained according to the
case that Paris v. Stepney Borough Council that an individual who is reasonable would
predict serious harm to others that was caused by Benji. In addition, a prudent person who
would be in the place of Susan would not leave the keys at a place that was easily accessible
to the kids who like play with the tiger Benji as they know where the keys are being kept or
have left at home. All prudent care was taken by Susan to secure her compound where she
kept her tiger but she had violated her duty as she had kept the keys at home where it was
easily found by the kids who play with Benji. Therefore, in this situation according to the
case of Latimer v. AEC Ltd, it has been mentioned that Susan had violated the duty as a
prudent person in relation to probability, seriousness and burden and would not have left the
keys at her home.
Mary and Cliff have suffered major damages caused by the actions of Benji. The damages are
house was damaged due to fire, tractor damaged, loss of chickens damage and lastly mental
damage that was caused due to the attack of the tiger. The application of the “but for” test
needs to be done so that the causation factor of negligence can be identified. This test gives

6
BUSINESS LAW
an individual who holds the duty of care and violating that duty will not be legally
responsible for the negligence if the damage to that the respondent is subjected to have been
caused irrespective of the violation of duty. Adding to it, as per the case of Cork v Kirby
Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402, it was clarified that if the damage will not be present or if a
certain act was not there then the act will be the genuine reason for the injury. Therefore, no
such damages may have caused to Mary and Cliff if the tiger did not jump on that tractor.
The causation factor has been identified because it has been that cause that led to damages. It
can be explained as per the implementation of “remoteness test” provided by the case of
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd that the damage that was
caused in relation with the fire took place in the house and the chicken are too isolated to be
seen. A prudent individual would not predict the existence of the chickens or the fire caused
by Benji. Therefore, as per the study that took place, Mary and Cliff have the right to claim
for the tractor’s damage and the mental damage caused to them because of the negligence of
Susan.
Mary and Cliff had to face damages of mental and the damages caused to their home due to
the attack of Benji. Through the implementation of the given case named Uren v John Fairfax
and Sons Pty Ltd, it can be said that both Mary and Cliff are entitled to claim for the damages
caused to them.
Conclusion
Therefore, it has been seen that the three factors of the negligence are there in the facts of the
case, and it is obvious that Mary and Cliff will get compensation from Susan for the damage
of the tractor and for the mental injury.

7
BUSINESS LAW
References
Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant [1933] 50 C. L. R. 387
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
Blake v Galloway [2004] 3 All ER 315
Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850
Colvin, E., McKechnie, J. and O'Leary, J., 2015. Criminal Law in Queensland and Western
Australia: Cases and Commentary.
Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
Hodgson, D., 2016. The law of intervening causation. Routledge.
Latimer v. AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1961] AC 388
Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180
Porter, D., 2017. Law and ethics in complementary medicine-a handbook for practitioners in
Australia and New Zealand [Book Review]. Australian Journal of Acupuncture and Chinese
Medicine, 11(1), p.31.
Stark, F., 2016. Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law.
Cambridge University Press.
Stickley, A.P., 2016. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths

8
BUSINESS LAW
Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven & Co 174 NE 441 (1931)
Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 40