preview

Peter Negligence Case Study

Good Essays
Theoretically, Sue can sue Peter under the tort of negligence if she can prove that Peter owed them a duty to care, breach of duty and damage (or loss) resulting from the breach. Additionally, Sue must be suffering losses or damage as a direct consequence of the negligence from Peter. The duty of care refers to the circumstances which are recognised as a legalised obligation to care for the duty one is performing, and failure to adhere to the standards may result in the responsible personnel being liable to pay for the damages due to his/her breach of the duty of care. First existence of the law with regards to “Duty of Care” originated from Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. In this scenario, we will…show more content…
The standards set are objectively judicious by the “Reasonable Man Test”. There are four reasons that Peter is liable for his negligence in “Duty of Care”. The first factor is the degree of risk involved; Peter must understand and assess the natural risk of his dogs’ reaction to strangers. The second factor would be the lack of precautions set by Peter with regards to the potential risk that his dogs provide. He did not set up necessary precautions like leashing the dogs and closing off the main gates to prevent his dogs from approaching strangers aggressively. The third factor speaks about the seriousness of the injuries. Due to Peter’s dogs not taken care of, their aggressive approach gave Sue’s mother a shock and a second cardiac arrest occurred, which lead to her death. Huge dogs tend to lean more towards the aggressive spectrum of the dog species, and Peter must understand the risk of these dogs as compared to the tamer species. Lastly, Peter must understand the importance of the activity and evaluate the risk involved. IF the dogs tend to be more aggressive in nature as mentioned, preventive measures must be…show more content…
He failed to understand his obligations and responsibilities as an Owner of the dogs and thus with his negligence, caused fatal damage to Sue and her family. He allows the dogs to be uncontrolled in its perimeters and risked the potential harm that the dogs will provide because they are not kept tamed from other personnel. Without proper education of the dogs and the awareness of oneself to reduce the potential risk that his dogs provide, Peter will be held responsible for the damage cause in this
Get Access