A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too quickly, from behind, but there was no evidence to suggest that it was anything more than a normal 5-year old horse.
Held: If liability is based on the possession of some abnormal characteristic known to the owner, then there is no sense in imposing liability when the animal is behaving in a perfectly normal way for all animals of that species in those circumstances, even though it would not be normal for those animals to behave in that way in other circumstances, for example, a bitch with pups or a horse kicking out when approached too suddenly, or too closely, from behind. The second limb of requirement (b) is ‘refining what is meant by abnormality, not imposing a head of liability contrary to the main thrust of section 2(2)(b)’.
Oliver LJ said he could not believe Parliament intended to impose liability for what was essentially normal behaviour in all animals of the species, and ‘In relation to a characteristic which is not infrequently, although not invariably, found in domestic animals of a particular species in particular circumstances, so that the exhibition of that characteristic in those circumstances cannot be said to be abnormal in the species, it is still necessary in my judgment to show that the keeper knew of the existence of that characteristic in the particular animal in those particular circumstances. In my judgment it is not sufficient to say that the behaviour complained of is behaviour which, in the particular circumstances, is sufficiently common to put the keeper on notice that because the animal belongs to the relevant species there is a risk that in the particular circumstances it may prove (there having been no previous knowledge on the part of the keeper that the particular animal is prone so to behave) to be one of those animals which does in those circumstances behave in that way.’
Judges:
Oliver and Lloyd LJJ and Sir George Waller
Citations:
21 March 1985 (Unreported)
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Preferred – Christopher John Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 24-Mar-2000
The plaintiff was a police officer. While carrying out his duties he was bitten by a police dog, an Alsatian, which had been trained to be aggressive when working. The claim failed, largely on the ground that on the particular facts the damage was . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals, Personal Injury
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180025