Liability for Animals

Question 1

Liability for Animals - Topics

Answer 1

• General Rules of Tort Apply to Animals
• Kavanagh v. Stokes [1942]
• Cattle Trespass
• Scienter - Principles & Case Law
• Control of Dogs Act

Question 2

General Rules of Tort Apply to Animals

Answer 2

• Negligence (e.g. Kavanagh v. Stokes [1942])
• Rylands v. Fletcher
• Trespass to Land
• Nuisance

Question 3

Kavanagh v. Stokes [1942]

Answer 3

• Landlady owed a duty of care to the paying guests
• Leaving the guard dog was a breach of duty as it was foreseeable that guests would arrive late.
• Held liable for negligence.

Question 4

Cattle Trespass

Answer 4

• Strict liability if cattle stray of their own volition onto another person’s property
• Negligence must be proven where animal strays onto public highway, or, if they are driven on a highway and then stray onto another person’s property
• Person in control of the animals can be sued, even if he is not the owner
• “Cattle” means farm animals (cows, horses, sheep, goats, domesticated fowl, deer)
• If animals are not cattle, negligence must be proven, no strict liability
• s 2 of Animals Act 1985 removed immunity for animals straying onto public roads
• O’Shea v. Anhold: A horse collided with a car on a public road. Defendant showed they took reasonable steps to keep the horse locked and was held not negligent.

Question 5

Scienter - Principles & Case Law

Answer 5

• Wild animals: strict liability for for any damage caused by them
• Tame animals: strict liability only if owner knows (actual or constructive knowledge) of “mischievous propensity”. Bees and Camels are tame animals.
• Quinn v. Quinn (1905): proof that the defendant’s sow had attacked and killed fowl before was sufficient to establish knowledge of the animal’s dangerous tendency.
• Duggan v. Armstrong [1992]
• Forster v. Donovan (1980)

Question 6

Duggan v. Armstrong [1992]

Answer 6

• A dog bit a hotel guest. Hotel manager’s son knew about the dog’s mischievous propensity.
• Hotel manager and his employer were held liable for scienter as they ought to have known about the dog’s propensity.
• SC held that the defendant does not have to wait for an animal to bite before he is held to know of its dangerous tendency.

Question 7

Forster v. Donovan (1980)

Answer 7

• A postman bitten by the defendant’s dog. The defendant had asked for letters to be delivered to a post box outside the gate, but the post man wasn’t informed. The defendant had a sign but postment didn’t see.
• The defendant was found liable due to knowledge of the dangerous propensity. The Post Office was found to have been negligent but not the postman.
• Contributory negligence is a partial defence and will reduce the amount of damages.

Question 8

Control of Dogs Act 1986

Answer 8

• Section 21: Owner of a dog strictly liable for damage caused by an attack on any person or injury to any livestock
• No requirement to show a previous mischievous propensity or awareness of it
• Exception: where Plaintiff is trespasser, negligence must be shown
• If livestock strays onto Defendant’s land, no liability unless D caused dog to attack
• If not an attack, scienter may still apply (although it generally doesn’t apply to dogs)