Owners of animals that are known to be potentially dangerous are usually aware that if their animal causes an injury, they will most likely be held responsible. However, owners of animals not normally considered dangerous may well assume that they will not be held liable for an injury caused by their animal, for example if their animal causes an accident.
A recent case has brought further clarification to the law and spells out a warning for animal owners.
The case concerned a horse which reared up and threw its rider, a 17-year-old girl. The girl suffered a serious head injury as a result. The horse had no history of misbehaviour and the girl was considered competent to ride it. The girl sued the owners of the horse for negligence, or in the alternative, claimed that the owners were strictly liable for the injury under the Animals Act 1971.
The court rejected the allegation of negligence. However, it accepted that the owner of the horse was strictly liable under the Act.
The Act places strict liability on the keeper of an animal that does not belong to a dangerous species if the animal causes harm where the following points are satisfied:
- where the damage is of a kind which, unless restrained, the animal was likely to cause or which, if caused, is likely to be severe; and
- where the likelihood of the damage or its being severe is due to the 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
- where those characteristics are known to the keeper of the animal.
Our Legal Advice is that all three of these must be present for the animal’s keeper to be liable under the Act. The court considered that it was clear that an accident involving a horse rearing is likely to be severe and that in certain circumstances horses are likely to rear if not restrained. The court accepted that in certain circumstances horses are likely to act unpredictably and that the owners, as experienced keepers of horses, would know this. Accordingly, the court found the owners liable.
The owners appealed. In the Court of Appeal the case turned on whether the behaviour of the horse was ‘normal’. The Court held that normal means ‘conforming to type’ and that rearing is natural behaviour for horses in certain circumstances. The owners’ appeal was therefore rejected.
“The implications of this case for animal owners are potentially far-reaching,” says Litigation Lawyers. “If the likely result of an accident is severe and it occurs because of the normal behaviour of the unrestrained animal in particular circumstances, then the owner is likely to be found liable, even if the behaviour of the animal is unusual.”
At present, the practical solution to the problem this raises for animal owners is probably to be found in their insurance policies, which should be read carefully. MP Stephen Crabb is proposing changes to the Animals Act which would mean that strict, non-fault based liability would only be applied to genuinely dangerous animals and that an owner’s liability for damage caused by a non-dangerous animal would be limited to cases of fault via common law negligence claims or under health and safety legislation. The Government is reported to be sympathetic to a change in the law.
Partner Note
Welsh v Stokes [2007] EWCA Civ 796.
See also Bill Aims to Change Animal Harm Rule, Western Mail, 4 December 2007 at http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/countryside-farming-
news/country-farming-columnists/2007/12/04/bill-aims-to
-change-animal-harm-rule-91466-20198519/.
