Enterprise Law (200909) Mid-session Exam, Spring 2018, Australia

This document presents a comprehensive solution to an Enterprise Law mid-session exam question. The analysis focuses on the legal implications of snake bites suffered by two individuals, Meghan and Catherine, and explores their potential claims under the tort of negligence. The solution dissects the elements required to establish negligence, including duty of care, breach, causation, and damages. It argues that a negligence claim would likely fail due to the lack of a direct relationship between the parties. The document then outlines alternative causes of action, namely strict liability and medical negligence, which could be successfully pursued by Meghan and Catherine, respectively. The strict liability section examines the doctrine in the context of wild animals and the responsibility of the defendants. The medical negligence section analyzes Catherine's potential claim against the hospital for substandard treatment. The document provides a detailed explanation of the legal principles and their application to the case facts, offering insights into the legal strategies for seeking compensatory damages.

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

failure to uphold such a duty. One such category of strict liability is in the keeping of wild
animals.
In this case, it would be immaterial that Harry and Smith acted negligently in their
conduct throughout the entire process. Meghan and Catherine can both sue both of them for a
failure to uphold strict liability. Strict liability in cases of animals requires one to prove three
elements in order to win. First is that there was injury. It is evident from the facts of the case that
the duo suffered injuries with Catherine incurring snake bites and Meghan suffering emotional
distress. Secondly is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions or product caused
the injury. The snakes that caused injury to the duo came from luggage that was under the watch
of Harry and Smith. Finally, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s activities were
unreasonably hazardous or that the defendant had control over the product. Here, the defendant’s
decision to place the luggage in an unlocked cupboard despite knowing the possibility of them
containing something dangerous was an unreasonable and reckless move.
Therefore, both Meghan and Catherine can sue for compensatory damages in injuries
suffered as a result of emotional distress and medical bills.
Medical Negligence
What amounts to medical negligence is any substandard care provided by a medical
profession to a patient, which worsens an existing condition or causes injury to the patient.
Catherine can successfully institute a suit of medical negligence against the hospital for giving
her below-par treatment. All she has to prove is that the doctor owed her a duty, which he or she
breached by some act or omission and that the act or omission caused her the harm. In proving
duty of care, the rule is that doctors have to undertake reasonable care to avoid acts which would
otherwise cause harm which they ought to have foreseen. The act of administering an ineffective

drug against the snake bite was a reckless one and the doctor ought to have foreseen adverse
effects of using such.
Accordingly, Catherine can seek compensatory damages in the medical expenses
incurred during treatment, future loss of earnings because of the career-damaging condition –the
losing of a limb-