Bodey v Hall

Under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, whether damage was likely to be severe must be assessed in the circumstances in which the animal acted. A horse’s tendency to flee or shoot forwards when startled may constitute a characteristic occurring in particular circumstances, even though that reaction is normal for horses when alarmed. The statutory requirements may therefore be satisfied where a horse’s unexpected movement causes a trap to tip and injures an occupant. The section 5(2) exception applies where the claimant fully appreciated the relevant risk and voluntarily exposed herself to it. An experienced horsewoman who understood the risk of a trap tipping accepted that risk by travelling as a groom. Failure to wear a riding hat did not establish contributory negligence on the evidence.

The claimant suffered a severe head injury when a horse pulling a pony and trap became startled by an unknown stimulus, shot forwards and caused the trap to tip. She sued the keeper under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, abandoning the negligence claim during the trial.

The issues were whether the damage was likely to be severe in the circumstances, whether the horse’s reaction was a relevant characteristic under section 2(2)(b), and whether the claimant had voluntarily accepted the risk under section 5(2). A further issue was whether failure to wear a riding hat amounted to contributory negligence.

1. Strict liability. The claim fell within section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971. The injury was caused by the horse’s actions, and the defendant was its keeper.
2. Likelihood of severe damage. The second limb of section 2(2)(a) requires the court to consider the circumstances of the accident. It was wrong to consider only whether the horse itself was likely to cause severe injury. A person thrown from a moving trap faced a reasonably foreseeable risk of severe injury. The approach in Cummings v Granger [1977] 1 QB 397, Curtis v Betts [1990] 1 WLR 459, Smith v Ainger (16 May 1990), Welsh v Stokes [2008] 1 WLR 1224 and Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2009] EWCA Civ 1185 supported that construction.
3. Relevant characteristic. Following the reasoning in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, a horse’s predisposition to run away when confronted by an unknown stimulus could be a characteristic for section 2(2)(b). The fact that the behaviour was normal for horses in those particular circumstances did not take the case outside the provision. The requirements of section 2(2)(a) and (b) were therefore satisfied, and section 2(2)(c) was accepted as satisfied.
4. Voluntary acceptance of risk. Section 5(2) applied. The claimant fully appreciated the risk that a horse might behave unpredictably and cause the trap to tip, and voluntarily exposed herself to that risk. The court distinguished Flack v Hudson [2001] QB 698, where the claimant lacked knowledge of the specific risk.
5. Alternative finding. If section 5(2) had not applied, the claimant’s failure to wear a riding hat would not have amounted to contributory negligence. The evidence showed differing practices and no established rule requiring hats for pleasure driving.
6. The claim was dismissed by reason of the statutory exception. The parties’ agreed order on costs was approved.