Claims Against Keepers Of Animals For Their Animals' Actions: Strict Liability Or Not?
A. Type of damage
Subsection 2(2)(a) provides that the damage must be of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe. In Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16 Lord Nicholls gave the example of a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow where section 2(2)(b) may not be satisfied. He said that: "There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall on someone any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). But a cow's dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows 'except at particular times or in particular circumstances'".
B. Abnormal characteristics
Section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act has been determined by the House of Lords in Mirvahedy v Henley in a split decision. Section 2(2)(b) relates to the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to 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. Lord Nicholls, giving the leading majority judgment noted that this subsection aimed to create strict liability for abnormal conduct of non dangerous species. The first limb of paragraph (b) identifies one class. The animal must have characteristics 'which are not normally found in animals of the same species'. The second limb of paragraph (b) identifies the other class of qualifying characteristics. The animal must have characteristics which are not normally found in animals of the same species 'except at particular times or in particular circumstances'.
The phraseology of section 2(2)(b) is notable for its capacity to be interpreted in diametrically opposite ways. There is no problem with the first part of section 2(2)(b)-do animals normally or are they prone to, for example, bite or kick? The problem is with the second part: does one cancel the double negative 'not normally…except' and ask whether what was done in the special circumstances was normal behaviour for the species as a general rule; or is the right approach to ask whether what was done was normal for the species in the particular circumstances even if it will be abnormal in the absence of such circumstances. In Cummings v Granger [1977] QB 397, the first of these approaches was adopted where Lord Denning MR said: "Those characteristics-barking and running around to guard its territory-are not normally found in Alsatian dogs except in circumstances where they are used as guard dogs. Those circumstances are 'particular circumstances' within section 2(2)(b). It was due to those circumstances that the damage was likely to be severe if an intruder did enter on its territory." This approach was followed by the majority in Mirvahedy v Henley (see also Curtis v Betts [1990] 1 WLR 459).
How the majority interpretation works in practice is that a bitch with her litter, a guard dog, a cow with her calf, will be covered by section 2(2): in essence normal behaviour in specific circumstances. In Livingstone v Armstrong (11/12/2003)(unreported) it was found that there was no negligence on the part of the cow's keeper in maintaining the fences on his farm. It was further found that the cow had in fact jumped a properly maintained fence. Evidence from the cow's keeper was that it was not normal for cows to jump over fences. There was no evidence that the cow was frightened or that it had bolted. The claim failed on the basis therefore that section 2(2)(b) had not been met because the behaviour in the particular circumstance was not normal. The problem becomes, of course, that every situation becomes a 'particular circumstance' and that animals, being animals, have behaved in a normal way. In litigation of this kind it is extremely important to identify the special circumstance in order to establish the normal behaviour of the animal.
Conclusion
The Animals Act is minefield of potential interpretive errors. Mirvahedy was thought to be a low point for defendants but there is more potential for hope or despair in the judgment (depending on whether you are a claimant or a defendant) than appears on first sight to be the case.
Related Tags: employment barrister, employment law, employment law unfair dismissal, employment law redundancy, ag
Ian Mann - http://www.employment-barrister-uk.com http://www.13kbw.co.uk 13 King's Bench Walk Ian Mann was called to the Bar in 2000. He practices in all civil and employment disputes.
Your Article Search Directory : Find in ArticlesRecent articles in this category:
- How to Hire a Personal Injury Attorney Toronto
There is no question that suffering from a personal injury is an incredibly difficult thing to have - Finding the Best Personal Injury Lawyer
Should you be the victim of an accident that just simply was not your fault and you have received an - DUI Perpetrators Must Seek Expert Help
It is obvious, as we progress further into the future, that behavior that puts others at risk is not - To Find the Best New York Attorney Buffalo is Still the Best Choice
If you need an attorney in New York, you would surely have a lot of options. New York has 10 cities - If You Need a Great Wisconsin Attorney Madison is the Way to Go
Are you in need of a great Wisconsin attorney? If you are from Wisconsin and need a great attorney M - What Is The Importance Of An LLP Agreement
An LLP agreement is an important contract, since without such a document the Limited Liability Partn - Personal Injury Lawyers - Get Help at Your Doorstep When Injured
As soon as you are involved in an accident, it is usually quite common for you to be injured maybe i - Personal Injury Lawyers - Knowing If You Are Entitled For a Claim
No doubts accidents do take place; however that does not mean that you should take up the liabilitie - Personal Injury Lawyers - Claiming Compensation For Your Injuries Some Tips
When you are injured, the next thing is you should know what legal rights you have; this will provid - Personal Injury Lawyers Help Victims of Car Accident Claim Financial Damages
People living in Toronto go to work through different modes of transports like trains, buses and car
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Mesothelioma Lawyer - Asbestos Attorney - Mesothelioma Lawsuits & Lung Cancer Information
Mesothelioma is one of the most tragic diseases ever to strike the working man. Due to decades of m - Michigan Personal Injury Lawyer Courts
The Michigan Courts were created by the Constitution of 1963, Article VI, and Section 1, under which - What is Entrapment?
Question: What is entrapment?Criminal Defense Lawyer: Entrapment is a defense raised by a defendan - Top 10 Tips On How To Win Your Road Traffic Accident Case
If you happen to be pursuing this thing right now then here are the top ten tips on how to win your - Agency Law
Agency Law The origins of the doctrine of necessitous intervention by someone who is in a legal rel - Procedure Of DWI In U.S.A.
ALR (Administrative License Revocation) A Program to suspend the driving license Of Drivers Which a - Mesothelioma Lawsuits Surging in United States
Mesothelioma is a cancerous disease where malignant cells develop in the lining of the chest or the - Forensic DNA Testing
Forensics is defined as the study of evidence found at a crime scene and used in a court of law. For - Arizona Drunk Driving Law, Az Drunk Driving Law & Arizona Drunk Driving Charges
Arizona drunk driving is one of the most common and deadly mistakes in Arizona while driving. Defens - Worried About the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Do you work for a financial institution that collects debts? If so, do you know whether the Fair De