Injuries by animals present a particular problem when assessing liability in personal injury cases and the lack of clarity of the Animals Act 1971 is unfortunate in that respect.
A recent decision, however, affirms the position that when an injury is caused by an animal, it is not just the characteristics of the animal that are in point, but the particular circumstances in which the injury occurred.
The case concerned a woman who was travelling as a groom in a pony and trap. After the driver turned off the lane onto a track, the horse became startled and shot forward suddenly, causing the trap to tip. The woman was thrown from the vehicle and suffered serious injuries.
The court ruled that the ‘flight’ reaction was a natural response of the horse to an appropriate stimulus. The driver of the trap should have been aware of this and so would be responsible for her passenger’s injuries unless the passenger had voluntarily accepted the risk. In this instance, the injured woman was both an experienced horsewoman and knew the horse well. Accordingly, she was deemed to have accepted the risk.
The woman’s claim was therefore dismissed.
Commenting on whether, had the claim been successful, any damages award would have been reduced because the injured passenger was not wearing any protective headgear, the judge observed that there are different schools of thought as to whether or not riding hats should be worn when travelling in a horse-drawn carriage. In this case, he was not satisfied that the woman’s failure to do so had ‘contributed to the cause of the accident’, but was not called upon to rule on the question of contributory negligence.
Partner Note
Bodey v Hall [2011] EWHC 2162 (QB). See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2162.html.