Goldsmith v Patchcott

For strict liability under section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971, a horse’s tendency to buck or rear when startled or alarmed is a characteristic normally found in the species in particular circumstances. The exceptional violence or energy of the behaviour does not prevent that condition from being satisfied.

The defence under section 5(2) applies where a claimant knew of the risk which eventuated and voluntarily engaged with the animal. The claimant need not have foreseen the precise intensity of the animal’s behaviour. A rider who accepts the risk that a horse may buck when startled cannot avoid the defence merely because it bucks more violently than anticipated.

An experienced horse rider suffered severe facial injuries after a horse called Red was startled, reared and bucked violently. She claimed damages from its keeper under the strict liability provisions of section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971.

The county court held that rearing and bucking when startled or alarmed satisfied section 2(2)(b), but dismissed the claim under section 5(2). The rider had known and voluntarily accepted the risk that the horse might buck when startled. She appealed against that defence. By a respondent’s notice, the keeper alternatively challenged the finding under section 2(2)(b).

The central issues were whether the violence of the bucking prevented either section 2(2)(b) or section 5(2) from applying.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The respondent’s alternative challenge under section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 also failed.

2. Per Jackson LJ, section 2(2)(b) was satisfied. The trial judge had found that bucking and rearing were characteristics of horses in the particular circumstances of being startled or alarmed. That conclusion followed the approach in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16 and Welsh v Stokes [2007] EWCA Civ 796. The provision was not confined to characteristics which occurred predictably or usually. The degree of energy or violence with which the horse bucked did not alter the nature of the relevant characteristic.

3. Section 5(2) applied because the rider foresaw and voluntarily accepted the risk that the horse might buck if startled or alarmed. A claimant need not foresee the precise degree of energy with which an animal will display its known characteristic. Animals may act instinctively or impulsively, and the exact intensity of their behaviour cannot necessarily be predicted.

4. The fact that the horse bucked more violently than the rider anticipated therefore did not defeat the statutory defence. This conclusion was consistent with Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2008] EWCA Civ 1185, where the defence applied although neither party anticipated bucking violent enough to unseat an experienced rider.

5. Longmore LJ agreed. The finding that horses buck when startled or alarmed placed the characteristic within the second limb of section 2(2)(b). A different conclusion might be possible on evidence that bucking was a normal characteristic of horses in every circumstance, but no such finding had been made. Rimer LJ agreed with both judgments.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The rider’s appeal was dismissed. The keeper’s alternative contention under section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 was rejected.

2. Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court: His Honour Judge Walton held that section 2(2)(b) was satisfied but dismissed the statutory claim because the rider had voluntarily accepted the relevant risk within section 5(2).