Mirvahedy v Henley

Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 imposes strict liability only where the statutory conditions are met and the damage is causally attributable to the animal’s relevant characteristics. Under section 2(2)(b), characteristics may qualify even though normal for the species, if they occur only at particular times or in particular circumstances. The keeper need know the characteristics; section 2(2)(c) does not require knowledge that those circumstances presently exist. Panic-induced flight and collision behaviour may therefore found liability where they caused the escape and injury.

The claimant suffered serious injuries when his car collided with a horse that had escaped, with two other equines, from the defendants’ field. The Exeter County Court dismissed the claim on 17 August 2000. It found no negligence and held that section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 did not impose liability. The negligence finding was not appealed. The claimant appealed on causation, arguing that the damage was caused by the horses’ panic-induced characteristics. The defendants cross-appealed on the characteristics issue, arguing that behaviour normal for horses could not satisfy section 2(2)(b). The central questions were whether the behaviour caused the damage and whether normal species characteristics manifested in particular circumstances could fall within the subsection.

Lady Justice Hale delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Keene and the President of the Family Division agreed. The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was refused, and permission to appeal was refused.

1. Causation. Section 2(2) requires a causal connection between the characteristics relied upon and the damage. It is insufficient that the animal’s presence merely created the occasion for the accident. The court distinguished Jaundrill v Gillett, unreported, 16 January 1996, where the effective cause was the horses’ release on to the highway and their remaining there. Here, the horses’ panic caused them to bolt, disregard obstacles and continue fleeing. That behaviour led to their escape and the collisions.
2. Characteristics. Section 2(2)(b) contains two limbs. The second covers characteristics which are normal for the species but are manifested only at particular times or in particular circumstances. The characteristics need not also be abnormal for the species. The court followed the approach in Cummings v Granger [1977] 1 QB 397 and Curtis v Betts [1990] 1 WLR 459. Contrary observations in Breeden v Lampard unreported, 21 March 1985 and Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2000] PIQR P114 were obiter and were not followed.
3. Parliamentary material. The conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 were satisfied. The relevant ministerial statements directly addressed the issue, consistently with the caution in Melluish v BMI (No 3) Ltd [1996] 6 AC 454. The material confirmed that temporary characteristics normal to a species could attract liability.
4. Knowledge. Section 2(2)(c) requires knowledge of the characteristics, not knowledge that the particular time or circumstances giving rise to them presently exist. The defendants’ knowledge that frightened horses may flee and ignore obstacles satisfied this requirement.

• Court of Appeal: In [2001] EWCA Civ 1749, the claimant’s appeal was allowed with costs here and below. The defendants’ cross-appeal was refused.
• Exeter County Court: His Honour Judge O’Malley dismissed the personal-injury claim on 17 August 2000, finding no negligence and no liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971.