The Law of Tort Essay

Owners of animate beings that cause hurt or harm were subjected to prosecution in the England. These animate beings could belong to a unsafe natured species. to a species that was non all that unsafe. a domesticated species or tame. Owners of animate beings who had knowledge about the unsafe features of their animate beings were apt for the legal effects of the harm or hurt caused by them. This state of affairs changed with the debut of the Animals Act 1971.

Under this act. the appropriate governments could find whether the nature of a peculiar species of animate being was unsafe or non. The jurisprudence imposes rigorous liability on the proprietors of animate beings. In the instance of non – unsafe species animals the liability imposed is based on the consciousness of the proprietor in regard of the harm the animate being could do. Contributory carelessness and premise of hazard are some of the defense mechanisms available to the proprietor of animate beings. The act disallows defense mechanisms that cite alibis for the harm caused by their animate beings such as an act of God or the act of a 3rd party [ 1 ] .

In the instance ofMirvahedy v. Henley. which was heard by the House of Lords in March 2003. it was decided that the proprietor of an animate being was apt for the harm caused by it. In this instance. Mirvahedy was going place in a auto. which was struck by a runaway Equus caballus that belonged to Henley. Consequently. Mirvahedy suffered serious hurts and the Equus caballus besides sustained hurts to which it subsequently succumbed. As such three Equus caballuss belonging to Henley stampeded on being frightened and this incident occurred in the dark. It was acknowledged by the tribunal that such behaviour was common amongst Equus caballuss that had been frightened to the needed grade [ 2 ] .

In the House of Lords the inquiry raised was whether the keeper of an animate being that was non unsafe and which had behaved in a mode that was normal under the fortunes for such an animate being. purely apt for any harm caused by such behavior. It was held by their Lordships that the mode in which the Equus caballuss had responded to what had caused them dismay was in no manner extraordinary.

Consequently. the fortunes of the instance would fall under the horizon of subdivision 2 ( 2 ) ( B ) of the Animal Act 1971. Therefore. the defence of Henley that the Equus caballuss had behaved in a mode for which he could non be held apt was indefensible. because the accident transpired due to the terror stricken behavior of the Equus caballuss. which could be construed to be the normal behavior of Equus caballuss that had been frightened [ 3 ] .

This reading of the Animals Act of 1971 resulted in a important addition in the liability of the proprietors of animate beings for the harm caused by these animate beings. A peculiar subdivision of the act requires the claimant to set up that the cause of the harm was a feature of the animate being that was usually found in it [ 4 ] . Furthermore. the following subdivision in that act requires the claimant to show that the animal’s proprietor had existent cognition of such a feature of that carnal [ 5 ] .

However. in the instance ofElliot v. Townfoot Stablesin which Emma Elliot sustained an hurt to her right shoulder and a break of the humerus. due to being thrown from the pony that she was siting. the tribunal decided in a markedly different to what had been decided in theMirvahedyinstance. The tribunal held that the harm caused to Elliot was non usually expected of a pony.

Furthermore. the tribunal held that it could non be sensible expected that such an hurt would hold been caused by the pony. The tribunal opined that the really first demand under Section 2 of the Animal Act 1971. which stated that the harm caused “is of a sort which the animate being. unless restrained. was likely to do or which. if caused by the animate being was likely to be terrible [ 6 ] ” had non been satisfied and therefore the claim of Elliot could non be sustained [ 7 ] .

In Scotland. Canis familiariss are categorised as animate beings that are likely to do physical hurts. The Scots statute law. viz. . the Animals ( Scotland ) Act 1987 does non take into consideration the cognition of the proprietor or keeper. Under this act. liability will be imposed based on the zoological classification of animate beings and the hurts caused by them. There is a agenda to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 harmonizing to which liability is ever imposed on the keeper of animate beings. The jurisprudence permits defense mechanisms like premise of hazard and conducive carelessness. Furthermore. in England and Scotland the common jurisprudence of carelessness is besides applicable [ 8 ] .

The legislators ensured that animate being proprietors were made purely apt for any hurt or harm caused by their animate beings even though the proprietors were non at mistake. In one instance the proprietors of Equus caballuss were penalized and made to pay significant compensation for the harm caused by their Equus caballuss. In this peculiar case three Equus caballuss of a Devon twosome went on to the route at dark from a field and stampeded on the busy route. One of these Equus caballuss collided with a auto. which resulted in serious hurts to the driver of the auto [ 9 ] .

The House of Lords held that the proprietors were responsible to pay compensation in conformity to the Animals Act although they had non been negligent. Under the Animals Act. although an animate being is non unsafe. the keeper of such animate beings has to pay compensation for the harm caused due to behaviour. which despite being uncommon in that species of animate being was exhibited either at a specific clip or under specific fortunes. The House of Lords found that the at large horses’ behavior. although non common in that species. was to be expected if the Equus caballuss were in a province of terror [ 10 ] .

Section 4 of the Animal Act provides liability for amendss and disbursals incurred due to intruding farm animal. If the farm animal of any individual wanders off on to set down that belongs to another individual and if harm is done by such farm animal to the land or to any belongings on it that is owned or possessed by that individual. so any disbursals that are moderately incurred by the individual to whom the land belongs in maintaining the farm animal. hold to be reimbursed by the individual to whom the farm animal belongs.

Further. sing the disbursals that are incurred in regard of animate beings that are detained in pursuit of subdivision 7 of this Act. or in determining as to whom such animate beings belong ; hold to be borne by the individual to whom the farm animal belongs and such a individual is apt for the harm caused or disbursals incurred. unless this Act specifies some other proviso.

There are some exclusions provided by the Act. which are contained in Sections 2 to 4. Some of these exclusions are foremost ; a individual is non apt under subdivisions 2 to 4 of the Act for any harm that is entirely the mistake of the individual who suffered the harm. Second. if the individual who suffered from amendss or hurts accepts the hazard of the amendss voluntarily so the proprietor is non apt for paying amendss under subdivision 2.

Third. a individual is non apt for amendss caused by his animate beings. which are kept on the premises or constructions to a individual intruding at that place provided. the animate being was non kept at that place for the protection of individuals or belongings or if it was non unreasonable to deploy such animate beings in that topographic point in order to procure its protection. Fourth. if the farm animal was killed or injured by a Canis familiaris on the land on to which it had strayed and if the Canis familiaris belonged to the occupier or its presence was authorised by the occupier so subdivision 3 of the Act absolves the proprietor of liability.

Section 2 of the Animal Act trades with liability for amendss caused by unsafe animate beings. whereas subdivision 4 of the Animals Act trades with liability for amendss caused by intruding farm animal. Under subdivision 2 ( 1 ) of this act. the keeper of an animate being that belongs to a unsafe species is apt for amendss caused by that animate being. Under subdivision 2 ( 2 ) of this act. the keeper of an carnal belonging to a non – unsafe species is apt for harm caused by this animate being if it had non been adequately restrained or if the animate being was capable of doing terrible harm.

Further. the keeper of such an animate being was apt if the harm was terrible due to the unnatural features of that peculiar animate being. which were in general absent in other animate beings of that species and were to be found merely under some specific fortunes. Furthermore. the keeper of an animate being is apt for the harm caused by it if he had knowledge sing such behavior of the animate being. This liability besides extends to those who assist the keeper and who are cognizant of these features of that animate being.

Actual cognition that is required for liability under the Animal Act and it is non sufficient if the keeper did non really cognize about the unsafe feature of the animate being. If an employee who does non hold charge of the carnal knows about its unsafe leaning. and a child less than 16 old ages of age and who is non a keeper of the carnal knows about the unsafe traits of the animate being but does non inform the keeper of the animate being. are non apt under subdivision 2 ( 2 ) of the Animal Act. Furthermore. knowledge about the unsafe traits of the animate beings is indispensable under subdivision 2. whereas under subdivision 4 such cognition is irrelevant.

Under subdivision 4 ( 1 ) of the Animal Act. when farm animal owned by any individual trespass into the land owned by some other individual and cause harm to that land or any belongings belonging to that other individual. so the individual who owns the farm animal is apt for amendss or disbursals incurred. Under subdivision 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) of the Animal Act. the disbursals incurred by the other individual in maintaining the farm animal. under fortunes where reconstructing these animate beings to their proprietor is non executable. hold to be reimbursed by the proprietor of the farm animal.

However. under both subdivisions 2 and 4 of the Animal Act. the keeper of farm animal or animate beings is non apt for amendss caused due to the mistake of the individual enduring the amendss. Furthermore. both these subdivisions trade with the liability of the keeper of the animate beings in regard of the harm caused by these animate beings. Furthermore. whether these animate beings are unsafe. non – unsafe or domesticated liability for harm caused by them arises under certain fortunes as is to be determined by the extant jurisprudence.

Bibliography

1. Animal liability. 2006. In Collins Dictionary of Law August 19. 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. credoreference. com/entry/5978683 & gt ;
2. Elliott V Townfoot Stables ; 3 September 2003. Newcastle County Court.
3. Mirvahedy ( FC ) ( Respondent ) v. Henley and another ( Appellants ) . ( 2003 ) . UKHL 16. on entreaty from ( 2001 ) EWCA Civ 1749.
4. Mirvahedy V Henley ( 2003 ) UKHL 16 ; ( 2003 ) 2 AC 491 ; ( 2003 ) 2 WLR 882.
5. Section 2 ( 2 ) . Animal Act 1971.
6. Section 2 ( 2 ) ( B ) of the Animals Act 1971.
7. Section 2 ( 2 ) ( hundred ) of the Animals Act 1971.
8. Section 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Animal Act 1971.
9. SHERWOOD. B. . & A ; TAIT. N. Mar 24. 2003. Horse proprietors to pay for harm on the instance ; [ LONDON 1ST EDITION ] . Financial Times. p16.

[ 1 ]Animal liability. 2006. In Collins Dictionary of Law August 19. 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. credoreference. com/entry/5978683 & gt ;

[ 2 ] Mirvahedy ( FC ) ( Respondent ) v. Henley and another ( Appellants ) . ( 2003 ) . UKHL 16. on entreaty from ( 2001 ) EWCA Civ 1749.

[ 3 ] Mirvahedy V Henley ( 2003 ) UKHL 16 ; ( 2003 ) 2 AC 491 ; ( 2003 ) 2 WLR 882.

[ 4 ] Section 2 ( 2 ) ( B ) of the Animals Act 1971.

[ 5 ] Section 2 ( 2 ) ( hundred ) of the Animals Act 1971.

[ 6 ] Section 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Animal Act 1971.

[ 7 ] Elliott V Townfoot Stables ; 3 September 2003. Newcastle County Court.

[ 8 ]Animal liability. 2006. In Collins Dictionary of Law August 19. 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. credoreference. com/entry/5978683 & gt ;

[ 9 ] SHERWOOD. B. . & A ; TAIT. N. Mar 24. 2003. Horse proprietors to pay for harm on the instance ; [ LONDON 1ST EDITION ] .Financial Times. 16.

[ 10 ] SHERWOOD. B. . & A ; TAIT. N. ( Mar 24. 2003 ) . Horse proprietors to pay for harm on the instance ; [ LONDON 1ST EDITION ] .Financial Times. 16.