The document analyzes liability for harm caused by animals under UK law. It discusses the Animal Act of 1971 which imposes liability on those who keep animals if harm is caused, regardless of fault. It examines the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous species, statutory defenses, and key cases that establish liability depends on the normal characteristics of the animal and whether the injured party contributed to their injuries.

1. Critical Analysis of
Liability for Animals &
Chattels
by Saisha Chitkara

2. Introduction
• In 1971, the UK passed the Animal act 1971, when someone keeps an animal
with full knowledge that it may hurt others, should the animal ever go free, that
person assumes full responsibility for any harm the animal does.
• This person has a legal responsibility to domesticate the animal and keep it
under control at all times so that it does not cause damage to anybody else.
• The general public agrees wholeheartedly that wild or untamed animals are
more likely to have this tendency than domesticated ones.

3. Imposition of
liability on the
keeper of
dangerous
animal
Breach of duty
In Whippey v. Jones,
• The claimant was running along a river embankment. A
large dog owned by the appellant, taking it for a walk,
was off the leash. It ran out at the claimant who broke
his ankle falling into the river. The defendant appealed
against a finding that he had been negligent.
• Held: The dog owner’s appeal was allowed. The damage
caused was found by the judge only to be a possibility if
the dog was released in these circumstances, but liability
should only have been found if such an injury was likely.

4. Who can sue
and who can
be sued
under the
Act?
Subject to subsection (4) of section 6, a
person is a keeper of an animal if:
(a)he owns the animal or has it in his
possession; or
(b)he is the head of a household of
which a member under the age of
sixteen owns the animal or has it in his
possession;

5. ANIMALS BELONGING TO A DANGEROUS
SPECIES
• Section 2(1) of the act states: Where any damage is caused by an animal which
belongs to a dangerous species, any person who is a keeper of the animal is liable
for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act.
• The offender is held severely accountable regardless of whether or not he knew the
animal presented a harm to people or took every reasonable precaution to prevent
the escape of the dangerous animal.

6. ANIMALS BELONGING TO A NON- DANGEROUS
SPECIES
• A person may be held accountable for injuries caused by a non-dangerous
(harmless) animal that acted abnormally in some regard, even though the owner
took all the steps that might reasonably be anticipated to prevent the animal
from escaping or harming another person.
• It makes no difference who caused the accident; the owner must pay for repairs.

7. STATUTORY DEFENCES
FOR DEFENDANT’S
LIABILITY UNDER S2
2. The plaintiff knowingly and willingly
accepted the possibility of suffering
damages.
3. The plaintiff illegally entered the
premises.
1. the plaintiff was entirely to blame
for the injury that was sustained.

8. Scienter Rule & Cattle Trespass
• If a "wild animal" caused harm, its owner had all responsibility under the
scienter theory (ferae naturae). The custodian had complete and whole
understanding of the feral animal's potentially lethal tendencies,
therefore this was the case.
• If the animal in question was a "domesticated animal" or "tame animal"
(mansueta naturae), and its keeper knew that it had a horrible
propensity to do the type of injury that was committed to C, then the
keeper would be held harshly accountable regardless of guilt.

9. Mirvahedy v Henley, (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 circumstances’, these being some sort of
fright or other external stimulus. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused
by his animal dependent upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two
requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown
animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to
cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.

10. Breeden v Lampard (1985)
The claimant's leg was broken when the horse she was riding approached another horse
too quickly from behind and kicked it. The issues arissed was that who should be made
liable for this act of the horse?
Since the case included a study of natural behavior, it is in the favor of the keepers.

11. Jones v Baldwin (2010)
FACTS:
• When the claimant rode too closely to the defendant's horse from behind,
the horse kicked him, causing bodily harm. The animal then reared up and
kicked the claimant as a result.
ISSUES:
• The defendant had a defense available under that section's fifth prong. This
was because the claimant had brought about his own injuries via his own
actions.

12. HELD:
• Two important points are reinforced by this case:
• first, that horse keepers are not responsible for actions that are
inherently equine.
• second, volenti non fit injuria

13. Conclusions:
• Animal act, 1971.
• 2 Types of animals in tort law
• Animals of Dangerous & non-dangerous species
• Liability of the person who domesticates or keep any animal for
commercial purposes or any other purpose.
• Scienter rule & Cattle Trespass
• Judicial Precedents.