The basic principle of the
Animals Act 1971 - a person
who keeps a dangerous
animal has strict liability for
any damage which the animal
may cause. -a person who
keeps an animal which is
domesticated and is usually
regarded as harmless will
only be liable if the animal
has given cause to fear that it
has unusual characteristics
which make it potentially
dangerous.
Keeper of the animal may be liable under S6(3)
the keeper is either the keeper of the
animal or the head of the household in
which a person is under the age of 16
Dangerous species
Definition
under S6(2)- a dangerous species is a
species that is a) not commonly
domesticated in the British Islands; and
b) whose fully grown animals normally
have such characteristics that the are
likely, unless restrained, to cause severe
damage or that any damage they do
cause is likely to be severe.
to be classified as
'dangerous' the species must
fulfil both sections a and b
liability for dangerous species
comes under S2(1) - the keeper
is strictly liable for any animal
defined as dangerous
Behrens
Annotations:
Dangerous is a question of law in each case.
Frightened elephant at circus
ran away and trampled the
claimants kiosk, injuring the
claimants. Court held that
although that particular
elephant was not
aggressive/violent, the damage
an animal of this size is likely to
cause would be severe.
Before the act, so it' common law
the act works in the same way
Tutin
C agreed to take part in a
camel race at the horse of
the year show, was thrown
from it and injured. Camel
was regarded as a
dangerous animal - not
commonly domesticated in
the UK- but claim was
unsuccessful as the
defence volenti applied
before act, so it's common law
dangerous is a question
of law in each case.
Non-dangerous species
Defined as any species not classified as dangerous
Liability exists under S2(2)
S2(2)(a)
The damage is of a kind the animal I likely to cause unless
restrained or if caused by the animal is likely to be severe
'Likely' means possible not probable
Smith V Ainger
D's dog -Alsatian cross- history of attacking other dogs. Attacked C's dog,
C intervened and was knocked over - breaking his leg. Damage was held to
be of a kind the large dog was likely to cause - large dog, knocking over
intervening owner = normal.
'severe' is a question of fact
Curtis
Bull Mastiff attacked and injured the claimant (aged 11) when he went to talk to the
dog while it was being loaded into it's owners car. S2(2)(a) was easily satisfied - big
dog with a powerful bite.
S2(2)(b)
The likelihood of severity of damage is due to abnormal
characteristics of the individual animal or species at specific times
A characteristic is abnormal if it is not
common in other animals of that species
Kite
A dog which had a habit
of attacking people
carrying handbags was
held to fall in this category
Wallace
Horse was known to be nervous - when loaded into a trailer by C, horse jumped
forward and injured C. Didn't need a tendency to attack people; S2(2)(b) could be
satisfied by the fact that the horse had a tendency to behave a certain way when
nervous, that other horses would not.
S2(2)(c)
The keeper knows of the characteristics
Keeper can be liable, even if the event is unforeseeable
and not the keeper's fault, for damage caused by
characteristics that only arise in certain circumstances
Mirvahedy
C was severely inured when his car collided with
D's horse, that had escaped from an electric and
wooden fence with the D's other 3 horses after
being frightened but an unknown stimuli. The
behaviour that cause the damage could be
described as 'characteristics...which are not
normally found except in particular times or in
particular circumstances' falling within S2(2)(b).
The defendants were therefore liable for the
damage.
Defences
S5(2)
The victim voluntarily accepts the risk
Cummings
C was bitten by an Alsatian, which was used as a guard dog in the D's
scrap yard. C knew D and had a key to scrap yard. C saw sign that said
'Beware of Dog' and entered anyway, so as held to have voluntarily
accepted the risk.
Dhesi
C involved in confrontation with the police, waved hockey stick aggressively in the air.
Ran and hid in bushes, was warned 3 times that the dog would be set loose if he did not
render. He did not so the dog was set loose and C was bitten several times. Voluntarily
accepted the risk AND the damage was entirely his fault.
S5(1)
D will not be liable for any damage that is wholly the fault of the claimant
Sylvster
C went into leopards pen to remove a lit cigarette - was held to be completely at fault
S5(3)
Animal was either not kept for protection or was not reasonable to do
so