Liability of Animal Owners/Keepers
Presented by
Simon Burley ACII FCILA
Andrew Robinson ACII FCILA
Animals on the Highway
Animals on the highway.
Innocent motorist strikes animal. Is there a liability in:a) negligence
b) Animals act 1971
If so who is liable:a) Owner?
b) Keeper?
Animals Act 1971
Section 2(1) – dangerous species
“Where any damage is caused by an animal which belongs to a dangerous species, any person who is a keeper
of the animal is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act”.
Section 2(2)
“Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, a keeper of the animal is
liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act, if
a)
b)
c)
the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the
animal was likely to be severe; and
the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not
normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in
particular circumstances; and
those characteristics were known to that keeper or were at any time known to a person who at that time
had charge of the animal as that keeper’s servant or, where that keeper is the head of the household, were
known to another keeper of the animal who is a member of that household and under the age of sixteen.”
Mirvahedy-v-Henley, House of Lords, March 2003
Clark –v- Bowlt 2006 The Court of Appeal
Highways Code
Paragraph 214
“Animals. When passing animals, drive slowly. Give them
plenty of room and be ready to stop. Do not scare animals by
sounding your horn, revving your engine or accelerating
rapidly once you have passed them. Look out for animals
being led, driven or ridden on the road and take extra care.
Keep your speed down at bends and on narrow country
roads. If a road is blocked by a herd of animals, stop and
switch off your engine until they have left the road. Watch
out for animals on unfenced road”
Dogs
Dogs
• Curtis –v- Betts 1990
A bull mastiff dog caused a severe injury to the
claimant boy whilst the dog was being put in the back
of a Land Rover. The dog and boy were on friendly
terms for a number of years. The boy came over to
the car and was encroaching the dogs “territory” the
dog’s owner knew it reacted fiercely when it
considered its territory threatened and they also knew
the dog regarded the Land Rover as its territory –
liability found.
• Whippey –v- Jones Court of Appeal 2009
Claimant knocked over by a boisterous dog and injured.
At first instance the claimant did not successfully make out
a liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act. The
claimant appealed and the Appeal Court considered
whether the dog owner had been negligent (they did not
further consider the Animals Act) the claimant lost.
• Addis –v- Campbell & Leaman 2011
Elderly claimant was allegedly knocked over by a
boisterous dog. Claimant suffered severe head injury, was
in a coma, in fact he never recovered from that. There
was considerable doubt as to whether the dog had in fact
impacted the injured party, in any event there was no
finding of negligence and no liability under the Animals
Act.
Highways Code
Paragraph 56
“Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it
on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path
shared with cyclists or horse riders.”
Section 3 of the Animals Act
“Liability for injury done by dogs to livestock.
Where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is a keeper
of the dog is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act”.
Section 4 of the Animals Act
“Liability for damage and expenses due to trespassing livestock.
1. Where livestock belonging to any person strays on to land in the ownership or
occupation of another and—
a) damage is done by the livestock to the land or to any property on it which is
in the ownership or possession of the other person; or
b) any expenses are reasonably incurred by that other person in keeping the
livestock while it cannot be restored to the person to whom it belongs or
while it is detained in pursuance of section 7 of this Act, or in ascertaining to
whom it belongs; the person to whom the livestock belongs is liable for the
damage or expenses, except as otherwise provided by this Act.
2. For the purposes of this section any livestock belongs to the person in whose
possession it is”.
Who is liable, the owner or the keeper?
Section 5.3 of the Animals Act
A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an
animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there, if it is
proved either—
a) That the animal was not kept there for the protection of persons or
property; or
b) (If the animal was kept there for the protection of persons or property)
that keeping it there for that purpose was not unreasonable.
Cummings –v- Grainger 1977 claimant was trespassing in a scrap yard.
Who is liable, the owner or the keeper?
Section 6 of the Animals Act
Section 6
3. a person is a keeper of an animal if—
a) he owns the animal or has it in his possession; or
b) he is the head of a household of which a member under the age of sixteen
owns the animal or has it in his possession;
and if at any time an animal ceases to be owned by or to be in the possession
of a person, any person who immediately before that time was a keeper
thereof by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection continues to
be a keeper of the animal until another person becomes a keeper thereof by
virtue of those provisions.
4. Where an animal is taken into and kept in possession for the purpose of
preventing it from causing damage or of restoring it to its owner, a person is not
a keeper of it by virtue only of that possession.
Insurance
Where is insurance cover available to the owner or keeper?
Specific equine or pet protect policy.
Membership scheme such as British Horse Society, British
Show Jumping Association, British Eventing/British
Dressage.
Household Contents – Personal Liability cover
Riding School/Riding Accidents
Duty to provide:
a) Proper supervision and instruction
b) Suitable horse
c) Adequate assessment of the riders competency
d) Safe tack and equipment
Case Law
(Animals Act)
• Elliot -v- Townsend Stables
Child fell off pony during a lesson when the pony bucked. It was tender over its ribs
which was not known or discoverable prior to the accident. The claimant
squeezed/kicked the tender spot causing the pony to react, jump off the track and un
seat the claimant. There was no likelihood of injury although a possibility, this was a
fall at relative low speed in an enclosed ménage on a soft surface.
• Welsh -v- Stokes & Stokes, 2007
The claimant suffered severe head injury (despite wearing appropriate head gear)
when she fell from a horse she was exercising onto the road. The only witness to the
accident was never traced but told the next person on the scene that the horse reared
up and had fallen over backwards. That version was accepted. It was held that all
three sub sections of section 2(2) were satisfied.
Case Law
• Freeman –v- Higher Park Farm, Court of Appeal,
2008
This was an experienced rider who had hacked out previously at Higher Park Farm.
She returned and was told that the horse that was available could occasionally buck.
She consented to that risk. She was bucked off. Courts held that an occasional buck
when starting to canter was not a characteristic, and allowed a defence under Section
2.
• Body –v- Hall, 2011
Mrs Body was an experienced equestrian, this was an accident involving a horse
drawn trap. She went along as groom to Mrs Hall. The horse spooked and bolted and
the carriage turned over. She suffered serious head injury. She wasn’t wearing a hard
hat. There was no negligence and there was a section 5(2) “consent” defence to the
Animals Act.
Case Law
• Seyf –v- Richmond Park
Claimant fell from a horse whilst out hacking, the horse
accelerated and drifted slightly to the right whilst cantering. The
Court agreed that the horse was not dangerous or unsuitable
and there was no lack of supervision or control. The claimant
was not successful.
Section 5(1) of the Animals Act
A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the
fault of the person suffering it.
Section 5(2) of the Animals Act
A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage suffered by a person who has
voluntarily accepted the risk thereof.
Jones –v- Baldwin 2010
The claimant rode too close to another horse which kicked him. No liability.
Smith –v- Dallimore 2011
An experienced rider taking part in a lesson given by supervised trainee instructor. Claimant rode
too close to the horse in front and was kicked, no liability.
The statutory defence under section 5(1) was made out and the Judge noted that she had
voluntarily accepted the risks associated with riding – section 5(2) defence was also made out.
Compensation Act 2006
PART 1
STANDARD OF CARE
1. Deterrent effect of potential liability.
A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in
determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to
meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or
otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might(a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular
extent or in a particular way, or
(b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a
desirable activity
•
McKaskie –v- Cameron 2008
Claimant attacked by cows when she deviated from
footpath. Liability attached. Occupiers Liability Act
•
Mckenny and another v Foster 2008
A cow jumped a fence and collided with a car on a highway
killing the passenger. It was highly unusual for it to have
jumped a fence. The cow had been separated from her
calf. The behaviour was not a normal characteristic nor
was it normally shown at particular times. It was an
atypical characteristic. The claimant could not show that
the defendants knew of it. All three sub sections of
section 2(2) not satisfied, claimant did not succeed.
• The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987
• Welsh –v- Brady 2009
• The Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1976
Summary
No likely immediate amendment to the Animals Act
However there are defences to the Act and the government have signalled that society
should not be risk averse
Repeal of the hunting act?
Comfort can be taken from the judgments in:Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003, House of Lords
Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee –v- Poppleton 2008
“Adults who choose to engage in physical activities which obviously give rise to a
degree of unavoidable risk may find that they have no means of recompense if the risk
materialises so they are injured”