PI Brief Update

Strict Liability Under the Animals Act: a Resume - David Wicks, Pump Court Chambers

22/03/12. In Goldsmith v Patchcott, the Court of Appeal (Longmore, Rimer and Jackson LJJ) considered once again the provisions of the Animals Act 1971.  The claimant suffered severe facial injuries when the horse she was riding bucked and reared, throwing her to the ground.  She brought a claim against the keeper under the 1971 Act.  The trial judge held that, although the requirements of section 2(2) of the Act had been made out on the evidence, the keeper was entitled to rely on the statutory defence under section 5(2) of the Act.  That decision was upheld on appeal.  

The case establishes no new principle.  However, the case is worth reading nonetheless, if only for the helpful and comprehensive review by Jackson LJ, in giving the leading judgment, the relevant cases.   

There is a certain irony in the fact that the Act, which was intended to clarify and simplify the common law on liability for animals, has generated considerable judicial attention and analysis, not to mention headaches for practitioners and judges alike as they attempt to navigate their way round statutory language  which is brief to the point of obscurity (or “oracular and opaque” as Jackson LJ put it in Goldsmith).

So what is the position now?  In what circumstances will the keeper of an animal be strictly liable under the Act for damage caused by that animal?

First, a reminder of the relevant provisions.  Section 2 provides that...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/titlezpix

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...