Animals Flashcards
Animals Act 1971
imposes liability on the keeper of the animal
Common law cases - focuses on the injuries occasioned by the animal
- no stand alone tort of animal liability
Gould - dog owner liable under the old rules on occupier liability for injuries occasioned to claimant by dog
Wheeler v JJ - liability occasioned by the animal is the responsibility of the owner
League against cruel sports - D was liable in trespass to the person dogs prayed onto someone else property
Roberts v CC - D was liable in trespass to the person after setting dog on C
Fardon - D was liable in negligence when failing to exercise reasonable care in preventing pet from causing foreseeable harm
Deakin article
argued D might be liable in slander for teaching his parrot to say something defamatory in front of third party
suggest common law rules developed in different social context - e.x before enclosure of farm land (Searle) - held owner of livestock owed no duty of care to users of highway to prevent animals from straying on it
Draper V Hodder- infant attacked by dogs owned by neighbour - D was liable in negligence for failing to take steps to prevent foreseeable risk
- dogs escaped before to go on exhibitions court said there was a foreseeable risk of harm and there was a duty to prevent it happening
Animals Act 1971 - S.6(3)
Who is being sued? keeper of the animal is the owner or possessor of it or the head of the household of which a member under 16 owns or possesses the animal
No need for escape or attack - though it can give rise to liability it is not necessary
Dangerous species - S.6(2) a and b
those not commonly domesticated and whose fully grown animals have such characteristics that they are likely unless retained to cause damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe
- includes tigers, elephants, lions, and the like
strict liability s.2(1) - any person who is a keeper of a dangerous animal is liable for the damage it causes
Mirvahedy - HL recognised that cases concerning dangerous species tend to relate to escapes from zoos and circuses
Behrens v Bertram circus - elephant escapes from circus it was irrelevant that it had been trained to behave in certain way - still a dangerous species
McQauker - held camal was a dangerous species
Non-dangerous species - S.2(2)
keeper will be liable for damage caused by a non-dangerous animal if:
(a) damages is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained was likely to cause or was likely to be severe
(b) likelihood of damage of its being sever was due to characteristics which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally found at particular time or in particle circumstances
(c) characteristics were known to the keeper or were at any time known to a person who at the time had charge of the animal - requires knowledge of keeper
S.2(2)(a)
foreseeability implies objective test:
- likelihood of damages if the animal is not retained
- if the animal causes any damage it is likely to be severe
Mirvahedy - this reference to likely means to be reasonably expected - more than 50% likely to happen
Smith v Ainger - something that might happen
S.2(2)(b)
Objective test
- permanent chartertics - charatertics that are transit to the animal in question
- normal characteristics which arise at particular times or in particular circumstances (Mirvahedy) - horse was frightened by something in stables bolted and escaped from the stable jumped over electrical fence and collided with a motorist - C sued in negligence under the act
- held keeper was not liable in negligence because he took reasonable steps keep horse fenced in - but liable under 1971 act held that the horse will only bolt off like that in certain circumstances if sufficiently frightened
Cummings v Grainger - C was injured by unstained German sheppard that was let loose id D scrap yard - D escaped liability because there was a fence but there was liability under the act it was not a ferocious dog it was displaying sufficient characteristics in circumstances and so liability under act was satisfied
Curtis v Betts - dog attacked 10 y/o in the street at the time it was being lifted into back car wiggled free and attacked child
- court found D liable under act - found that dog as a species tend to ac fiercely where defending their territory, it was a normal characteristic
Welsh v stokes - horse described as sensible it was frightened and reared up and threw rider off - court said it was a normal characteristic of a horse when reacting to fear and so satisfied s.2(2)
S.2(2)(c) - was keeper aware of characteristic
Hunt v Wallis - court said section required actual knowledge of charateristic - is it not enough to say that keeper ought to have know about it -
Glanville v Sutton - horse bit man and it was enough to show that horse had a tendency to bite horse it was not enough - requires actual knowledge
Welsh - court said keeper does nit beed to know if actual circumstances, it will be enough to know that animals of same species will behave that way in certain circumstances
Mckenny v Foster - agitated cow - held that it did not attract liability it was a behaviour that was not a normal charateristic of the breed - it was so unusual that not liability could arise
Liability for dogs
1971 act - s.3 - where a dog causes damage by killing it inuring livestock the keeper of dog will be liable for that damage
1971 act - s.5(4) - where dog has attacked livestock the keeper will have a defence if livestock in question was killed or injured on land on which it has strayed which belongs to the owner
1971 act - s.9 - a person can kill a dog if necessary to protect its own livestock
Liability for straying livestock
livestock includes: cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinges, sheep, pigs, goats, poultry, non wild deer
1971 act - s.4 -
1971 act - s.11 - defined livestock
Ellis v Loftus iron - held that slightest degree of entry will suffice
s.4(1)(a) - does not extend to personal injury only damage to land in question
Detention and sale of straying livestock
1971 act - s.7(1) - allows occupier of land to detain and keep animals on land - rights cease where the occupier who detained the animals is given enough money to compensate for any damages and expenses
s. 7(6) - detainers duty - treat the life stock that is detain with reasonable care supply it with adequate food and water
s. 7(4) - statutory right of sale - if after 14 days no one claims the animal in question the detainer has the right to sell
Defences and remoteness
remoteness - assume wagon mound no 1 applies
fault of the victim - s.5(1) - circumstance can be attributed to the fault of the victim then this act will provide a defence
- ex. C is bitten by Ds dog which he has just kicked
Voluntary acceptance of risk - S.5(2) - victim must have fully accepted the risk and nevertheless exposed himself to it
- Dhesi - C tried to escape after being told police dog was about to be set loose - he ignored it and was attacked by the dog - held to have voluntary accepted risk
- Turnball - experienced horse rider was thrown off after horse reacted badly - she was experienced and was deemed to have known and therefore accepted the risk - keeper had defence under this section
- Goldsmith - experienced horse rider knew horse would rear up when startled but was unaware of intensity - court said that was irrelevant knowing about and accepting the risk was enough for defence to operate
Victim is a trespasser - s.5(3)
- Cummings v Grainger - C was trespasser on scarp yard and bitten by a dog - there was a defence for D - LJ ramrod it was not the least unreasonable to keep guard dog and defence applied
