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, but rather, given their lack of abnormality, whether the reaction was one which was characteristic of what might be expected of a normal member of that species in those circumstances. If it was the latter, then the owner was strictly liable.
Judges:
The President Of The Family Division, Lady Justice Hale, And, Lord Justice Keene
Citations:
Times 11-Dec-2001, Gazette 17-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1749, [2002] QB 769, [2002] 2 WLR 566, [2002] PIQR P19
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .
Approved – Curtis v Betts CA 1990
The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face . .
Distinguished – 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 . .
Distinguished – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals, Personal Injury
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.166929