Negligence In Simon V Zoo

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

There have been many discussions about the welfare of animals since the first zoos were created. Some people agree that animals should be kept in zoo’s, they argue that it benefits the animals because their every need is catered to. However, in some zoo’s they are treated the exact opposite of being catered to. Sometimes the animals are also deprived of a natural environment that the zoo’s fail to recreate. However, zoo’s can be helpful educationally to kids. It gives them a close up on the beauty of the animals, but it comes at the animals expense.

The boy is safe. Isn’t that what we wanted? But in return a gorilla a part of an endangered species is now dead. The zoo took many precautions so things like these wouldn’t happen. But it did. Should the parents have watched their son a little closer? Should the zookeepers have dealt with this in a different manner? I think that what’s done is done but for future mishaps, situations like these need to be dealt with

- Zoo’s take on the duty to honor animal rights given that they have taken responsibility for the animal. This means that zoo’s must work to avoid pain and seek to bring the animals pleasure. An “informed empathy” (having a reverence for all life) is the basis for our ethical standard in how we treat animals. Going against this ethical basis in zoo’s is only acceptable when there is a threat to human life. Callicott will be brought in here yet again, to discuss how we have a duty of care for animals and that zoo animals are our creations, so we must treat them ethically.

In the past, there have been many reports of zoo accidents, to be specific; over 200 zoo accidents in the last 26 years have occurred. From my perspective zoos should be prohibited, taking innocent animals from the wild and holding them captive for display at zoos is cruel. There has been a bulk amount of controversy over the topic of zoo mishaps and whose fault is to blame for the occurrence. In all fairness, nobody should be blamed, but there should be a change or new regulations to guide zoos in a more prominent direction. Because in the end, if there is no difference in the zoo, then tragic events like this will continue to happen. There are various amounts of precautions that can be taken by zoo corporations to prevent zoo accidents;

Negligence is the most common type of liability case that healthcare organization face. It often occurs when a person fails to hold up to the accepted standards of behavior. There are four elements essential to proving negligence: 1. a duty of care, Duty is a legal obligation the defendant owes to the plaintiff. In a negligence case the duty is most commonly expressed as a general obligation to act with care in other words to conduct oneself as a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances. 2. Breach of that duty: A breach of duty occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard.  A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another person’s injuries. Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witness which is usually the same witness who established the duty in the beginning. 3. injury: Damage or harm

Charla Nash could sue a business if her dispute had been with it, and she would probably have won the claim. The state dismiss Nash's claim, for the state generally is immune to lawsuits, unless allowed by the claims commissioner. The business would have been responsible for not seizing the chimpanzee before the attack because it had been a warned that the chimp was dangerous. She was seriously hurt; the chimp disfigured her face and ripped of her hands.

RULE - Negligence occurs when an entity fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to others. For a valid negligence claim the plaintiff must establish the following elements of proof: duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and actual loss or harm. If the defendant can attack any of these elements they may successfully defend the negligence suit. The first element is establishing the presence of a duty of care owed by one party to another.

Throughout modern history, parents have often taken their children to the zoo or circus to go see wild animals that they might not otherwise see in person. This practice is viewed as an innocent and exciting way to teach little ones about the animal kingdom. However, the child is introduced to the idea that animals, no matter how large or deadly, are for the entertainment of humans and should be treated as such. Zoos are only one example of how humans are practically in direct control of the fate of wild animals. Even in the wild, animals are left to the mercy of humans due to our insatiable desire to carry on expanding as Jon Mooallem illustrates in his magazine article, “What’s a Monkey to Do in Tampa?”. According to, Mark Prigg for

Everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care for his well-being. If the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury, he cannot collect any damage from defendant. Plaintiff must absorb the full loss of the injuries.

This legal fiction is used as the standard against which an actual defendant is held. if the actions of the defendant fall below what would have been expected of the reasonable prudent person, then the defendant has breached the duty of care.

Negligence is a breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. The Duty of care owed in number of situations such as driver and pedestrian, doctor and patient, employer and employee, teacher and student and in many other situations. Thereby, negligence is one of the most extensive areas in tort law. In order to prove liability in negligence the claimant must show, on the balance of probability, that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care required and as a result the claimant suffered loss or damage which is not too remote.[1] Thus, it is important to prove all three elements because each of them are complex and conceptually

On february 9, 2014 at the Copenhagen zoo in Copenhagen, Denmark an 18 month old giraffe was shot just after being fed. Following his death by gunshot, he was dissected in front of many people, including young children. Following his dissection, the zoo workers fed his remains to carnivorous animals within the zoo. There was actual evidence of this, a picture was taken of a lion in the zoo eating a chunk of meat with giraffe hide, ensuing Marius’ dissection. This caused a problem among animal lovers because the zoo did it without cause. Marius was killed because he was deemed “useless” by the zoo due to his genes being too common. Now, the reason his death is deemed “animal cruelty,” is because his death was not necessary, many other zoos

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable