Question

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defense to action in negligence.

Facts:
A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, from which they sought to recover. Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?

Options

• An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendant’s conduct automatically imposes on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

• The loss to the traders was pecuniary. They suffered no physical harm to themselves or to any of their property. An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendant’s conduct did not automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

• It is not proved that there was negligence on the part of the scientists which resulted in an escape of the virus so they are not liable.

• Though the scientists are negligent in handling the virus, they are not liable as the leakage of virus was by accident.

Answer 1

The loss to the traders was pecuniary. They suffered no physical harm to themselves or to any of their property. An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendant’s conduct did not automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

Explanation:

The scientists while conducting the experiment owed a duty of care, no doubt but this case is of a unique nature. The traders did not suffer physical harm to themselves or to their property in which case the issue of duty of care was relevant but here the traders suffered financial losses and that too in a  very indirect manner. An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as a result of a  defendant’s conduct did not automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid the loss.