Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Animals - From: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Cutler v United Dairies [1933] 2 KB 297; [1933] 102 LJKB 663; [1933] LT 436
1933
CA
Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ
Negligence, Animals
A horse pulling one of the defendant's vans was seen running loose without a driver. It left the roadway onto private land. The driver caught up and called for help. The plaintiff jumped into the field and was injured trying to restrain the horse. There was evidence that the horse had bolted twice before. Held: Any negligence of the defendants did not contribute to the accident. The plaintiff's actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens, and since he must have expected to run a risk of injury, they also allowed the defence of volentia no fit injuria.
1 Citers



 
 Haynes v Harwood; CA 1935 - [1935] 1 KB 146
 
Searle v Wallbank [1947] AC 341; [1947] 1 All ER 12; (1947) 176 LT 104; (1947) 63 TLR 24; [1947] LJR 258
1947
HL
Lord du Parcq, Lord Porter
Animals, Negligence
There existed an ancient common law immunity in respect of animals straying onto a public highway. An owner or occupier of land adjacent to a highway has no legal obligation at common law to highway users so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences and gates as to prevent animals from straying on to it, and that he is not under any duty as between himself and users of it to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying on to it.
Lord du Parcq said that there is "an underlying principle of the law of the highway is that all those lawfully using the highway . . must show mutual respect and forbearance." He went on to explain the Fardon case: "Nevertheless, Lord Atkin’s proposition will be misunderstood if it is not read as subject to two necessary qualifications: first, that where no such special circumstances exist negligence cannot be established merely by proof that a defendant has failed to provide against the possibility that a tame animal of mild disposition will do some dangerous act contrary to its ordinary nature, and, secondly, that even if a defendant’s omission to control or secure an animal is negligent, nothing done by the animal which is contrary to its ordinary nature can be regarded, in the absence of special circumstances, as being directly caused by such negligence.”
Lord Porter was careful to distinguish the difference between animals that stray onto a highway, from which no liability flows, and animals that are brought onto a highway deliberately, when reasonable care must be exercised to control them
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Cresswell v Sirl; CA 1948 - [1948] 1 KB 241
 
Pearson v Coleman Bros [1948] 2 All ER 274
1948


Animals, Negligence
A child, visiting the circus, left the tent to relieve herself. She passed the lions' runway, where she was mauled. She sought damages for personal injury. Held: The only people invited into that enclosure were those who came through the proper entrance. However, having entered the circus as an invitee, and there being no proper facilities, it was foreseeable that a child would not take heed of the warnings, and for this purpose she was an invitee. The circus was liable in negligence.

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.