Animals Act: Further Post Mirvahedy Developments
View all news

Private Members Bill

Preseli Pembrokeshire MP, Stephen Crabb, has put forward a Private Members Bill to change the liability for harm caused by animals. The Bill calls for an amendment to the Animals Act 1971, so that strict, non fault based liability would only be applied to animals with a genuinely dangerous propensity not normally found in animals of that species.

The Bill, drafted by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), was formally introduced in the House of Commons on 5 December 2007 and should receive its first detailed consideration at Second Reading on 14 March 2008. If it is able to progress smoothly through both Houses of Parliament, the Bill could become law by next summer.

The Animals Act 1971

The Animals Act 1971 places strict liability on the keeper of animals that cause harm where the following points are satisfied: “(a) the damage is of a kind which, unless restrained, the animal was likely to cause or if caused by the animal was likely to be severe; and (b) the likelihood of the damage was due to characteristics which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and (c) those characteristics were known to the keeper.”

This section codified the previous common law rule of “scienter” i.e. knowledge that a particular animal was dangerous, i.e. that it had a propensity to act in a way not normal for that species. However, the second limb of paragraph (b) is ambiguous. Were the particular times or particular circumstances those that excluded strict liability, or simply extended the definition when strict liability would attach? Courts had battled with this dichotomy for years, but it was eventually resolved by the House of Lords judgment in the landmark case of Mirvahedy v Henley (2003) which found by a majority of 3 to 2 that the latter interpretation was the correct one. For example, cows are normally placid, but it is quite normal for them to attack if with young. In such circumstances strict liability will attach.

The case in question concerned serious injury caused to Mr Mirvahedy by a ‘spooked’ horse running on to the road on which he was driving. The owners of the horse were not found to be negligent but the ruling used S.2(2) of the Act to impose strict liability for the acts of this “normal” animal, because horses as a species would act in such a way when frightened. Those “particular circumstances” were sufficient to impose strict liability and the owners were deemed liable and had to pay for the harm caused.

This broadened the scope of the law and set a new legal precedent, leaving animal owners vulnerable to potentially huge compensation claims for accidents even where all reasonable precautions had been taken to limit the risk. Several high-profile compensation claims have since reached The High Court and involved 5 and 6 figure sums.

The bill proposes replacing S.2(2)(b) with the following:

“…the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are abnormal to its species in the particular circumstances…”

The intended effect of this is not only to reverse the decision in Mirvahedy v Henley but replace it with the former interpretation set out above i.e. that the actual animal must be acting abnormally given the circumstances pertaining. Accordingly, as horses will normally break down barriers if frightened, strict liability will not attach if damage or injury is done solely as a result. An attack by a cow with young would not, ipso facto, impose strict liability.

Spiralling Insurance Premiums

As a result of the ruling in 2003, public liability insurance premiums soared and related rural businesses, such as the equine and farming industry, experienced a prohibitive increase in costs. The impression spread that claimants would almost always win a claim for damages involving horse riding accidents and, as a result, the number of claims rose, some speculative, and so did the cost of insurance. It was reported that in July 2004, the number of claims increased by 200% on the previous year.

According to the Association of British Riding Schools, up to 650 schools have closed in the past 4 years (bringing numbers down to 1,850 by April 2007) principally as a result of unmanageable running costs. Insurance premiums have been rising irrespective of the riding centre’s claim history, with some rising 3 or 4 fold over the last few years and often representing the school’s single biggest cost. Some riding centres have been refused insurance cover altogether. Millions of people who enjoy horse riding have faced extra costs as a result.

A Positive Move

The proposed amendment to the Act would ensure that responsible owners of ‘normal’ animals will not be liable where they have not been negligent or where they are not in possession of a wild animal or one with a dangerous propensity. The proposal seems to have cross party political support and is welcomed by the rural community and the CLA, where many feel that since its implementation the 1971 Animals Act has damaged rural business, the equine industry and tourism. The Bill also has the support of the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance.

It must also be noted that any change in the law must not absolve animal owners of their responsibility to take every reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of damage, and that full liability for such damage should still apply in any cases where negligence is proven.

See related article ‘Livestock Claims and 'Post Mirvahedy' Technical Paper’, 9th Feb 2007, and if you would like a copy of the paper, ‘Animals Act 1971 Post-Mirvahedy’, by our liability expert Alan Peck, please contact jodie.abraham@agrical.com

View all news

Animals Act: Further Post Mirvahedy Developments View all news

Animals Act: Further Post Mirvahedy Developments
View all news