Williams v Hawkes

Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 imposes strict liability for damage caused by an animal of a non-dangerous species where the statutory conditions concerning the kind or severity of damage, relevant characteristics and keeper knowledge are satisfied.

The characteristics causing the likelihood of damage may be normal for the species when they arise only at particular times or in particular circumstances. Causation requires the damage to result from those characteristics, rather than merely from the animal’s presence, escape, size or weight. Panic-induced behaviour can satisfy that requirement. It is not decisive whether the animal struck the vehicle or the vehicle struck the animal.

Mr Martyn Williams was injured when his car collided with a Charolais steer that had escaped from a farm and reached the A465. He brought claims in negligence and under the Animals Act 1971.

The Cardiff County Court dismissed the negligence claim but found the estate of the steer’s keeper liable under the Act. The defendant appealed against the liability decision, principally arguing that the claimant had not established the required causal connection between the damage and the steer’s relevant characteristics. The central issue was whether the steer’s panic-induced behaviour caused the collision, or whether the accident was attributable only to its presence on the highway, its escape, or its size and weight.

1. The appeal was dismissed. There was no basis for interfering with the recorder’s findings or conclusion under the Animals Act 1971. The negligence finding was not challenged.
2. Section 2(2) was to be applied according to its structure. The steer was not of a dangerous species. The requirement in section 2(2)(a) was satisfied because its size and weight made damage of the relevant kind likely to be severe. The first limb of section 2(2)(b) was not relied upon, but the second limb was satisfied because the likelihood of damage was due to characteristics occurring in particular circumstances. The keeper’s knowledge under section 2(2)(c) was agreed. Requirements (a) and (b) were linked by causation.
3. The approach in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, [2003] 2 AC 491 applied. The relevant question was whether the damage was caused by the characteristics capable of founding liability, not merely by the animal’s presence on the highway or its size. The earlier Court of Appeal reasoning in Mirvahedy v Henley [2001] EWCA Civ 1749, [2002] QB 769 was consistent with that approach.
4. The fact that the car struck the steer, rather than the steer striking the car, was not material. The recorder had found that the steer was running in panic under the continuing influence of the original and subsequent averse stimuli when the collision occurred. That finding established the necessary causal link. Jaundrill v Gillett was distinguishable and should be treated with great caution and confined to its particular facts. Lord Justice Hickinbottom agreed that it provided no assistance on the general legal principles after Mirvahedy. Lord Justice Davis also made the further observation that liability would not necessarily be avoided if the steer had temporarily stopped or the driver had successfully swerved to avoid it.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2017] EWCA Civ 1846, the defendant’s appeal against the liability decision was dismissed.
• Cardiff County Court: On 23 March 2016, Mr Recorder Lloyd Williams QC dismissed the negligence claim but found liability under the Animals Act 1971 and directed that quantum be dealt with separately.