Clark v Bowlt

Liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 depends on satisfying linked statutory requirements. Where the alleged likelihood of severe damage arises from an animal’s ordinary size and weight, that normal characteristic cannot also satisfy section 2(2)(b).

A keeper is not routinely liable for aberrant conduct by a domesticated animal. Under the first limb of section 2(2)(a), the animal must have been likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of the kind which occurred. An untoward and unlikely movement by an ordinarily well-governed animal does not meet that requirement.

A motorist’s car collided with a horse when the horse made an uncontrolled movement from a grass verge into the road. The county court found neither the motorist nor the rider negligent, but held the horse’s keeper liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 and awarded the motorist damages exceeding £8,000.

The horse’s keeper appealed from the decision of His Honour Judge Walton in Newcastle upon Tyne County Court. The central issue was whether the likelihood requirements in section 2(2)(a) and the characteristic requirement in section 2(2)(b) were satisfied by the horse’s weight or its propensity to move contrary to its rider’s direction.

1. Appeal allowed. The linked requirements of section 2(2)(a) and section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 were not satisfied. The motorist’s claim and the Part 20 claim were dismissed.

2. Under the second limb of section 2(2)(a), the county court was entitled to find that damage caused by a large and heavy horse was likely to be severe. That conclusion did not establish section 2(2)(b). The relevant dangerous characteristic was the horse’s weight, which was normal for its species. Lord Nicholls’s reasoning in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16 was applied.

3. The proposed alternative characteristic—an occasional propensity to move otherwise than directed—did not establish liability. Its status as a characteristic was doubtful, and the county court had not identified the particular times or circumstances in which it arose. Describing it as a characteristic of horses generally instead indicated that it was normal to the species.

4. That propensity was relevant, if at all, to the first limb of section 2(2)(a). The correct question was whether the damage was of a kind which the horse, unless restrained, was likely to cause. The evidence showed an untoward and unlikely mishap. Horses generally, and this horse in particular, ordinarily followed their riders’ directions. The careful manner in which the motorist had passed the horses also supported the conclusion that such damage was not likely.

5. Sedley LJ added that section 2(2) does not make keepers of domesticated animals routinely liable for damage resulting from characteristics common to the species. The provision requires a characteristic of the particular statutory kind, which was absent here. Buxton LJ agreed with the Lord Chief Justice, and all three members of the court allowed the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The claim and Part 20 claim were dismissed: [2006] EWCA Civ 978.
2. Newcastle upon Tyne County Court: His Honour Judge Walton found neither party negligent but held the horse’s keeper liable under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 and awarded damages exceeding £8,000.