Strict Liability for Animal

Knowledgebase

Lawcentres.org > Lawcentres > Knowledgebase

Strict Liability for Animal

Solution Strict Liability for Animals

This is an issue which is presently under consideration in the English courts in view of recent cases. In England the relevant legislation is the Animals Act 1971.

The importance of the wording of Section 2 of the 1971 Act was brought to light in the recent case of Mirvahedy – v – Henley heard by the House of Lords in March 2003. In this case Mr Mirvahedy was driving home from work, when a horse belonging to Dr & Mrs Henley ran across the road, straight into his car. Mr Mirvahedy was seriously injured as a result of the accident which then occurred. Something unknown seemed to have frightened this horse and two others which were kept in the same field. They stampeded, escaping from the field, fled along a country track and then a minor road before entering the busy main road where the accident occurred. Such behaviour was found to be usual in horses when sufficiently alarmed by a threat. The question put to the House of Lords was : "

Is the keeper of an animal, such as a horse, strictly liable for damage caused by it when its behaviour had been in no way abnormal for an animal of the species in those circumstances?"

Section 2 of the Animal Act 1971 deals with liability for damage done by dangerous animals. Subsection 2(2) states:

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 –

1. 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
2. the likelihood of the damage, or of it being severe was 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
3. 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 ……

The House of Lords held that: normal behaviour for an animal of that species is nevertheless normal behaviour for the species in the particular circumstances and does not take the case outside Section 2(2)(b). Accordingly it was precisely because the horses were behaving in that unusual way, caused by their panic that the accident occurred and as such this was fatal to the Henley’s defence.

In the more recent County Court case of Elliot –v- Townfoot Stables, Newcastle County Court, September 2003, the facts were that Emma Elliot was thrown from a pony, injuring her right shoulder and fracturing her humerous. Section 2 of the 1971 Act and its interpretation in the Mirvahedy –v- Henley case was considered. It was held that on the evidence before the court, the damage in this case was not of a kind which a pony was likely to cause, or if caused, was likely to be severe. Such injury may have been a mere possibility but it was not reasonably to be expected or as such which might happen. Therefore, the claimant had not satisfied the first requirement of Section 2 and as such the claim failed . (There was no requirement to go on and look at the second & third requirements since the Plaintiff failed at the first hurdle).

Was this article helpful? yes / no

Article details

Article ID:	143
Category:	Animals
Date added:	15-02-2009 07:56:09
Views:	305
Rating (Votes):	(1)

<< Go back