Liability for Animals

Question 1

What is liability for animals

Answer 1

Liability for animals has been an area of law, causing various problems for judges. New legislation added has made it less distinct what the outcome of a case should be. The rules for liability of animals can be found under the Animal’s Act of 1971. The basic principles are that anyone keeping a dangerous animal has strict liability for any damage caused, whereas a domesticated pet has to be proven to have unusual characteristics, causing it to be viewed as a dangerous animal.

Question 2

Keeper

Answer 2

The “keeper” of the animal assumes responsibility of the animal. The role is defined under the Animal Act 1971, s6 (3) (a), “he owns the animal or has it in his possession” or s6 (3) (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”. In the scenario of the animal straying, the original keeper shall remain liable until this position is filled by the requirements of s6 (3). It is defined under s6 (4), a person who takes a stray into safe-keeping to prevent it from causing damage or until it can be return is not defined as the “keeper”.

Question 3

What are dangerous animals

Answer 3

Dangerous animals are defined under s6 (2) as a species:
• (a)- which is not commonly domesticated in the British Isles.
• (b)- whose fully grown animals normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage that they may cause is likely to be severe.
There are distinct dangerous animals and it is common for harmless viewed animals, such as elephants, who have a large mass to be classed as a dangerous animal due to the significant potential damage they can cause.

Question 4

Dangerous animals

Behrens v Betram Mills (1957)

Answer 4

In this case claimants running a booth at a fun fair were startled by a large Elephant called Bullu, a member of the defendant’s troop of elephants. Bullu was scared of a small dog, which had causedD him to trample the booth, injuring the claimants. This elephant was described as harmless as and ‘no more dangerous than a cow’. However, the defendants were still held liable.
This cases was derived before the Animal Act 1957, conveying the severity which may be cause by a tame and very large animal. An animal does not have to be physically dangerous to be classed as a dangerous animal within the law.

Question 5

Tutin v Chipperfield (1980)

Answer 5

Tutin v Chipperfield (1980): During a camel race the claimant was thrown off the camel by it awkward gait at the Horse of the Year Show. It was held that the camel was a member of a dangerous species. On the contrary, the claimant did not win their claim due to the voluntary assumption of risk applied.

Question 6

Non- dangerous animals

Answer 6

Non- dangerous animals

Any animal not covered by the dangerous animal definition is classed by law as a ‘non- dangerous’ species

Question 7

Liability for dangerous animals

Answer 7

S2 (1)- ‘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’.

Question 8

Liability for dangerous animals-

Mirvahedy (FC) v Henley and Another (2003)

Answer 8

Three horses were frightened and they bolted out of the field. An electric fence was pushed over and a surrounding wooden fence and then stampeded along a track to a road. They ran for more than a mile on a dual carriageway, where one of the horses collided with the claimant’s car. The claimant was seriously injured and the horse, killed.

Question 9

Damage must be

Answer 9

Section 2 (2) (a) states that the damage must be ‘of a kind.., which, if caused by the animal is likely to be severe’.
The only defences available are under s (5), where it was the claimants fault or they voluntary assumed the risk.

Question 10

Liability for non dangerous animals

Answer 10

This is defined under s 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” if:
• (a) 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
• (b) the likelihood of the damage or of its 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
• (c) those characteristics were known to the keeper (or his servant having charge of the animal or to a member of his household who is a keeper but age under sixteen).

Question 11

Smith v Ainger, The Times, 5June (1990)

Answer 11

In Smith v Ainger, the Times, 5 June (1990) An Alsatian Cross had a history of attacking other dogs and then attacked the claimant’s dog. The claimant was knocked over, breaking his leg. It was considered whether this outcome was likely to occur unless the dog was restrained.
This claim was successful due to ‘was likely’ being defined as ‘such as well might happen’, meaning it was likely that the dog owner would intervene and injure themselves in the process.

Question 12

Behaviour

Answer 12

Behaviour
After s 2 (2) is satisfied, the cause of the animals dangerousness must be established by either:
• (i) the danger was caused by characteristics ‘which are not normally found in animals of the same species’ or
• (ii) it was caused by characteristics which are not normally found in animals of the same species ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances’.

Question 13

Curtis v Betts (1990)

Answer 13

The claimant, 11, was bitten by a bull mastiff weighing 70kg. The claimant called to the dog, who then leapt out of the car and bit the child on the face. It was held that both s 2 (2) (a) and s 2 (2) (b) were both met.

Question 14

Cummings v Grainger

Answer 14

An Alsatian dog was loose in a scrap yard against intruders. The claimant went into the yard and was seriously injured by the dog. It was held that the characteristics not normally found in an Alsatian dog, unless used as a guar dog, meaning s 2 (2) (b) was satisfied

Question 15

What is a characteristic? Gloster v Chief Constable of Great Manchester (2000)

Answer 15

Gloster v Chief Constable of Great Manchester (2000); A German Shepherd Dog was rated as ‘satisfactory’ and ‘not aggressive’. His handler was about to release the dog to chase a car thief when he fell. The claimant had been given no warning not to run as the dog had been loosened and was bitten twice in the leg before Jack was called off. There was a question over whether a dog which had been trained to be aggressive in some circumstances had a ‘characteristic’. The defendant was not held liable as s 2 was not satisfied.

Question 16

Section 2 (2) (c) - Does the keeper know?

Answer 16

There will only be liability for damage caused by a non-dangerous animal if the dangerous tendency is known to the keeper. In the case of an animal’s owner, who is under sixteen, the child’s knowledge will be imputed to the head of the household for this purpose. The requirement is of ‘actual, rather than ‘constructive knowledge’. Where a keeper ‘should have’ known but did not know, of the likely consequences in particular circumstances, although there may be no liability under the Animals Act, there may be negligence.

Question 17

Statutory Defences

Answer 17

The Act sets out defences which can absolve the keeper from liability for injury or damage caused by either dangerous or non- dangerous animals.
S 5 (1) - ‘a person is not liable... for any damage which is wholly the fault of the person suffering it’.
S 5 (2) - no liability for anyone who ‘voluntarily accepted the risk’ of damage.

Question 18

Dhesi v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, The Times, 9 May 2000

Answer 18

The claimant and some youths were involved in a confrontation with the police. The claimant was holding a hockey stick, which he was swinging from side to side in an angry aggressive manner. He ran off and hid in some brambles. After being tracked by the police dog he was warned three times if he did not surrender the dog would be loosed. The claimant was bit several times in his struggle to get away from the dog. The claimant was held to have voluntarily accepted the risk of being injured and that resulting damage was entirely his fault.

Question 19

Liability to Trespassers

Answer 19

S 5 (3) (a) - a person is not liable if a trespasser is injured by an animal which is not being kept for the purpose of protection.
Where an animal is being kept on premises for the purpose of protection of persons or property, a keeper will not be liable to a trespasser ‘if keeping (the animal) there for that purpose was not unreasonable’.