Sofia Schoultz v Vicki Ball & Ors.

Liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 is strict, but each statutory condition must be proved. Under section 2(2)(a), whether damage or severe injury was reasonably to be expected is a prospective factual question. Under section 2(2)(b), the relevant characteristic must be dangerous and causative of the damage. A horse’s ordinary response to fear does not automatically satisfy the provision. The claimant must establish the requisite degree of fear or panic, or another dangerous behavioural characteristic, and must connect it causally to the damage. Where a horse escapes calmly, later reacts only by trotting when followed by a vehicle, and is stationary or barely moving when struck, section 2(2)(b) is not made out.

The claimant suffered severe injuries when a taxi collided with Lowri, a horse owned by the first defendant, on the A3. The horse had escaped with another horse from a retirement-livery field operated by the second defendant. The claimant’s claims against the second and third defendants, and related Part 20 claims, had been resolved.

The preliminary issue was whether the owner was liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971. The owner accepted that she was a keeper. The central questions were whether the statutory conditions concerning the likelihood and severity of damage, the animal’s dangerous characteristics, and the keeper’s knowledge were satisfied.

1. Claim dismissed. The first defendant, as owner and keeper of Lowri, was not liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971.
2. Liability under section 2(2) is strict, but the claimant must prove each of sections 2(2)(a), (b) and (c), subject to the statutory exceptions. A horse is not a dangerous species for the purposes of section 6(2), so the claim depended on section 2(2).
3. For section 2(2)(a), “likely” means reasonably to be expected. Whether severe injury was likely is determined prospectively on the evidence. The court must not infer likelihood from the accident or from the fact that severe injury occurred. Expert evidence may assist.
4. Section 2(2)(b) requires a dangerous behavioural characteristic which is causative of the damage. Its second limb can apply where behaviour is characteristic of horses in particular circumstances, including a severe fear or panic response. It does not impose liability merely because a horse is large and heavy or because it displays ordinary behaviour in response to a lesser stimulus.
5. On the facts, Lowri and Fox wandered calmly from the field over inadequate fencing. They later travelled along roads, probably driven or herded by a car, but the evidence did not establish panic. Lowri was stationary or barely moving when struck and was probably calmly exploring her surroundings. The claimant therefore failed to prove that Lowri’s dangerous characteristic caused the damage. Section 2(2)(b) was not satisfied and that failure was fatal.
6. It was unnecessary to decide sections 2(2)(a) and (c). The judge stated that both limbs of section 2(2)(a) would have been met, and the relevant knowledge under section 2(2)(c) was admitted.