Limited Liability Partnership

...

(Words: 1099)

Question 2

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 deploy the Caparo Test; which is a three stages examination invented by Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605. This will allow us to investigate further if Peter is liable due to his breach of his obligations.

Firstly, Peter should understand the behaviour of his dogs and their characteristics, as well as the extent of damage that his dogs provide if they are physically aggressive towards any third party. Peter failed to perform his responsibilities as an Owner and secure his dogs with leash / prevent them from exiting the house premises by locking up the gates. He did not foresee the damages that his negligence of his obligation provides and the impact it will have on other personnel.

Secondly, we question if there are sufficient relationship of proximity between the claimant and defendant. In this scenario, Sue’s mother (the claimant) was directly affected because of Peter’s negligence and got injured. Therefore, there is valid jurisdiction for Sue to institute legal proceedings against Peter.

Thirdly, to institute the breach of “Duty of Care” on Peter, Neighbour Principle is applied. Peter must perform his duties as the Owner of the dogs and prevent any potential dangers or negligence that might occur. He must be able to assess the risk that might involve and implement procedures to safeguard his interest.

Once it is determined that there is a breach of the obligation Peter has based on “Duty of Care”, the court must now judge base on the list of standards that issued for that society. 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 implemented.

With the above evident reasons, the claimant must show losses or damages that were directly consequential due to the defendant’s lack of awareness of his responsible obligations. This evidences must be shown as a foreseeable potential outcome of the breach, and in this case, it clearly shows as Sue’s mother had a cardiac arrest caused by the aggressive nature of the dogs.

In a law jurisdiction like tort, the defendant will have to accept the condition of the victim as per the actual incident. Under the Thin Skull Rule, which applies to personal injuries, this concept is remodelled to allow recovery of all instances of damage, even those unforeseen by the defendant. Using the scenario as an example, Sue’s mother has got a shock as the dogs aggressively approach and bark at her, causing her cardiac arrest to reoccur, and eventually leads to her death. Although there is no physical contact sighted in this scenario, Peter is liable for his negligence of “Duty of Care” as the possible outcome will occur on any personnel with the same fragility of his/her body condition as Sue’s mother has. The defendant will thus be liable for breaching of the tort law. This can be referenced similarly as the case of R v Hayward (1908).

In conclusion, it is evident that Peter is liable for the claims and the legal actions that Sue has raised on this issue. 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 scenario.

(Words: 901)

Reference:

Rottenstein Law Group LLP. (n.d.). What is a "duty of care". Retrieved from

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-a-duty-of-care/

Saw Meng Tee & Partners PAC. (n.d.). Different Types of Business Structure. Retrieved from http://www.sawmt.com/en/starting-a-singapore-business/different-types-of-business-structure.html

Singapore Company Registration Services. (n.d.). Setting Up a Partnership in Singapore. Retrieved from

https://www.singaporecompanyincorporation.sg/how-to/incorporate/partnership/

Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. (March 2014). Features of a Company. Retrieved from

https://acra.gov.sg/How_To_Guides/Setting_Up_in_Singapore/Features_of_a_Company/

Hawksford Singapore. (n.d.). LLC (commonly known as Private Limited company) vs. LLP vs. Sole Proprietorship. Retrieved from https://www.guidemesingapore.com/incorporation/other/business-entity-type-comparison

Margaret Fordham. (June 2006). Ch.20 The Law of Negligence.