Searle v Wallbank: HL 1947

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

Judges:

Lord du Parcq, Lord Porter

Citations:

[1947] AC 341, [1947] 1 All ER 12, (1947) 176 LT 104, (1947) 63 TLR 24, [1947] LJR 258

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedFardon v Harcourt-Rivington 1932
The court set out the reasonable man test for forseeability: ‘If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then to take no precautions is negligence; but if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would . .

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Donaldson CA 9-Jul-2004
Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214658