Negligence In Simon V Zoo

838 Words4 Pages
The topic identified is based on negligence. “Negligence” means failure to exercise reasonable care and skill.
Was there a duty of care owed to Simon and if so, was that duty of care breached by the Zoo.
Simon suffered harm by being rendered physically injured as a result of being attacked by an orangutan whilst on a school excursion to the Zoo. An action may lie in negligence against the Zoo; however, before the Zoo can be held liable for Simon’s damages it must first be established that the Zoo has committed a breach of duty of care.
1. Simon v Zoo
1.1 Duty of Care:
For Simon to recover any damages against the Zoo in the duty of care, he must show that the animal that caused his injuries was under the care or owned by the Zoo and that he suffered injuries that were of the type consistent with foreseeable harm by the animal. The reason being is owners/caretakers of animals have a strict duty of care for the reasonable and foreseeable harm caused by the animal.

1.2 Breach of Duty of Care:
Breach of duty of care requires the plaintiff to prove on three separate matters that (a) the risk of harm was foreseeable (b) the risk of harm was insignificant and (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken precaution against the risk of harm.

The Zoo is responsible for housing, caring for and maintaining animals. It should be reasonably foreseeable that an accident may arise that would result in

More about Negligence In Simon V Zoo

Get Access