Liability for Animals Flashcards
What is Animal Liability?
[O]ne can succinctly state the legal position relating to the liability for injuries caused by animals in the following way: granted that special rules of strict liability have been developed by the law in relation to some injuries caused by some animals these are in no way exclusive rules of liability; the general rules of tort liability also apply to injuries caused by animals.
If a dog bites a person, the owner may in the appropriate circumstances be liable in Trespass, in Negligence, in Nuisance, under the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher or under the heading of Occupiers’ Liability.
There may be an advantage for the plaintiff to attempt to bring the special rules of animal liability into play, but if he fails he can still proceed under any of the above general headings in the appropriate circumstances.
The advantage of trying to get the special rules to cover the case is, of course, that if he succeeds, principles of strict liability will apply. The special rules of animal liability when they apply, generally impose strict liability on the defendant, whereas the general rules of tort liability still require the plaintiff in many cases to prove fault on the part of the defendant. Small wonder then that plaintiffs should attempt in the first instance to have the special rules applied to their cases.
Quinn v. Bradbury [2012] IEHC 106
an employee of the defendant was injured by a horse in the course of his employment. Charleton J found that the employer was liable on ordinary negligence principles. Charleton J found that “horses are inherently dangerous … the animal is markedly stronger and swifter than a person”. The court held the employer was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries when the horse went out of control, and the employer had not taken the appropriate precautions on the facts of that case. The horse had a history of going out of control: “On occasions, this particularly strong animal would take an idea and rush off, only capable of being controlled by putting its head into vegetation to curb its flight”, and there had been an incident the previous Friday before the plaintiff’s accident which should have alerted the defendant.
Cattle Trespass
Cattle includes farm animals, domesticated fowl, and deer, but not cats, dogs, or wild animals.
If a person’s cattle strays from his land onto a neighbour’s land the defendant is strictly liable for the damage caused.
If The cattle strays on to the highway and then onto a neighbour’s land, no action can be brought for cattle trespass, although the defendant may be liable in negligence or nuisance.
The person in control of the cattle can be sued, even if he is not the owner of the cattle
If the defendant intentionally or negligently allows his cattle to directly enter the plaintiff’s land an action may arise for trespass to land.
Wild animals and liability
A defendant is strictly liable if a person is injured by a wild animal (ferae natruae) over which the defendant has control. If the animal falls into the category of ferae naturae the person must keep the animal at his peril and is strictly liable to the plaintiff for any injury caused. Animals that fall into this category include wild animals e.g. bears.
Scienter
A person can bring a scienter action if he is injured by a domesticated animal (mansuetae naturae) with a known tendency to act dangerously.
If the animal falls into the category of mansuetae naturae the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge (scienter) of the animal’s tendency to act dangerously
Quinn v. Quinn
proof that the defendant’s sow had attacked and killed fowl on a previous occasion was sufficient to establish the defendant’s knowledge of the animal’s dangerous tendency
Duggan v. Armstrong
the Supreme Court held that the defendant does not have to wait for an animal to bite before he is held to know of its dangerous tendency, it is sufficient for the animal to display “a vicious propensity” which indicates that he may bite. In that case the dog in question was “always growling” and used to run after children
Forster v. Donovan - strict liability
a postman was bitten by the defendant’s Alsatian dog. The defendant had contacted the post office and asked for his letters to be delivered to a postbox outside the gate. This message was not passed on to the post man by the Post Office. The defendant had also erected a sign “Beware of Alsatian”. The defendant was found liable as the court found that he had knowledge of the dangerous propensity of the dog and liability under the scienter action is strict.
Contributory Negligence
If the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, this is a partial defence and will reduce the amount of damages to be awarded.
JT v. AM & Anor.
the plaintiff was walking along a public road when whe two boxer dogs owned by the defendant came across the road and jumped up at her in an effort to bite her face. She was knocked back onto the green verge at the side of the road. The plaintiff succeeded in her claim for damages against the defendant.
