Wilson v Donaldson

A farmer who grazes cattle near a public road must take all reasonable precautions to prevent their escape and ordinary negligence principles apply. Where a heavily used public right of way crosses the field, the duty extends to guarding against visitors leaving a gate open through carelessness. Foreseeability does not impose a universal fail-safe or automatic-closing system. Reasonableness is fact-sensitive and involves weighing the likelihood and consequences of escape against the cost and practicality of precautions. If intervening land is known to be dilapidated and provides no effective barrier, the risk may be assessed as though the stock gate were beside the road. A cattle-proof alternative route may reasonably be required so that the stock gate can remain locked. The common-law immunity was abolished by the Animals Act 1971.

The appellant farmer appealed from a decision of Mr Recorder Bullock in the Middlesbrough County Court dated 16 October 2003. The recorder held him liable for injuries suffered when cattle escaped from an upper field through a gate crossing a heavily used public footpath, passed through neglected and unfenced land at Home Farm, and reached the B1257 road.

The appeal concerned whether the recorder had imposed an excessive standard of care by requiring additional precautions, including a self-closing gate, and whether the claimant needed expert evidence about ordinary farming practice and the cost or feasibility of alternative measures.

1. Appeal dismissed. The recorder was entitled to find the appellant negligent on the facts.
2. The ancient common-law immunity concerning animals straying onto a public highway had been abolished by section 8 of the Animals Act 1971. Ordinary negligence principles therefore governed the claim: a farmer grazing cattle in a field beside a road must take all reasonable precautions to prevent their escape from endangering road users.
3. Lord Justice Potter held that, where a heavily used right of way crosses the field, the duty extends to guarding against the carelessness, malice or oversight of lawful users who may leave the stock gate open. The farmer could not rely on users knowing the Country Code or understanding the surrounding topography and the risk that cattle would reach the road.
4. The physical separation between the appellant’s field and the road did not remove the risk. Because the appellant knew that Home Farm’s gates and fences were dilapidated and that cattle could readily proceed to the road, the situation was effectively equivalent to cattle being kept in a field adjoining the road. The foreseeability of escape did not require a universally fail-safe system, but reasonable precautions had to be assessed in the particular circumstances.
5. The relevant assessment involved the quantification of the risk, the consequences if it materialised, and the cost and practicality of protective measures. On the evidence, a variety of reasonable alternatives existed, including a cattle-proof stile or kissing-gate beside a locked stock gate. Common-sense reasoning and the admissions of the appellant and his son were sufficient; expert evidence of farming practice was unnecessary unless the appellant sought to contest liability on that basis.
6. Lord Justice Rix agreed, adding that both the risk-balancing exercise and broader policy considerations pointed towards liability. Mr Justice Munby agreed with Lord Justice Potter and expressed no view on Lord Justice Rix’s additional point. The formal order was: appeal refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In [2004] EWCA Civ 972, the court dismissed the farmer’s appeal and ordered that the appeal be refused.
2. Middlesbrough County Court Mr Recorder Bullock, on 16 October 2003, found the farmer liable in negligence for injuries caused by cattle straying onto the road.