Gloster v Greater Manchester Police

Under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, liability for damage caused by an animal of a non-dangerous species requires an unusual characteristic, known to the keeper, which caused the likelihood of the damage or its severity. A trained German shepherd’s ability to respond to instructions is ordinarily a characteristic of the sub-species, not an unusual characteristic merely because the particular training enables a limited attack. Liability also requires the statutory causal link between the characteristic and the damage. The appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to establish that link. The court emphasised that the conclusion was reached on the unusual facts and did not determine the wider liability of keepers of dogs trained to attack human beings.

A police officer was bitten by a trained police dog after the dog escaped when its handler slipped during an attempted arrest. The County Court dismissed claims in negligence and under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971, finding no negligence and concluding that the statutory conditions were not met. The claimant appealed against the dismissal. The principal issues were whether the dog’s police training constituted a characteristic not normally found in German shepherd dogs and whether the likelihood of the damage, or its severity, was due to that characteristic.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. Lord Justice Pill held that section 2(2)(b) is concerned with a departure from characteristics normally found in the relevant species or sub-species. It does not impose liability where an animal behaves in a perfectly normal way for animals of that species or sub-species.

2. The relevant characteristic was the ability of German shepherd dogs to respond to training and instructions. The particular training to conduct a limited attack in limited circumstances was a manifestation of that characteristic, rather than the characteristic itself. The dog had acted in accordance with its training, in a way characteristic of the sub-species. Section 2(2)(b) was therefore not satisfied.

3. Lord Justice Pill also held that the claimant failed on causation under section 2(2). The likelihood of the damage being severe was not due to the characteristic relied upon, and the bites were an unlikely consequence on the findings of fact.

4. Lady Justice Hale agreed with the result but preferred the causation ground. She accepted that training could produce characteristics, but held that the statutory question was whether the likelihood of the damage actually caused was due to those characteristics. On the very unusual combination of circumstances, that causal requirement was not established.

5. The judges cautioned against drawing general conclusions about liability for dogs trained to attack human beings. The absence of liability under section 2(2) did not exclude liability in negligence or, where the facts justified it, assault and battery. Lord Justice Pill observed that a high standard of care is required from those using such dogs for security purposes.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from the Manchester County Court with costs.
• Manchester County Court: His Honour Judge Tetlow dismissed the claimant’s negligence and statutory claims on 19 April 1999.