Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The aforesaid liability of the respondents can be easily couched in legal language. The basis is the action under the Torts. It can be compartmentalized in three different heads :-

1. Duty to take care and negligence on the part of the respondents.
2. Liability as keeper of dangerous animals.
3. Liability as occupier of the premises, viz., Zoological Park.

1, Duly to take care

9. Not able to keep the required caution and safeguards would clearly amount to negligence and such negligence is actionable under the Law of Torts. In Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. v. Sate of Gujarat, JT 1994 (3) SC 492, the Supreme Court quoted the meaning of negligence as defined by Winfield in the following words "negligence as a Tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, , Supreme Court enumerated following three constituents of negligence : (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) Breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. As already observed above and discussed in detail at subsequent stage as well, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to ensure that wild animals in the Zoo are kept and confined in such a manner that they are incapable of causing damage or injury to the visitors.