Time to Act on the Animals Act, says CLA

On the day that a senior Conservative MP tabled a House of Commons motion calling on the Government to act to remedy the spiralling costs of insurance for horse-businesses (1) David Fursdon, President of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said:

"The CLA is very grateful to the Shadow Agriculture minister, Jim Paice MP for re-tabling this important motion. The CLA has been calling for action since 2005, including a petition to the Government of over 1000 signatures which we handed personally to the then Rural Affairs minister, Jim Knight MP, in July 2005. However, nearly two years later, we are concerned that we're no further forward. We hope that the political support of the Opposition will impress upon the Government that it's time to act on the Animals Act."

 

Jim Paice MP, said: "Equine businesses are continuing to suffer and it is important that the Government resolves this issue as soon as possible. Higher insurance premiums are not only threatening the commercial viability of many horse-riding establishments, but in some cases increasing the cost of riding. The detrimental consequences of this judgment must be addressed."

 

The problem stems from a 2003 House of Lords interpretation (2) of the Animals Act 1971 which broadened out the scope of the original law leaving any business, including farms, involving a potentially dangerous animal highly vulnerable to being sued. The Animals Act originally aimed to make the owner of a dangerous individual animal liable for any harm or damage it caused. Under the new interpretation, liability also hits the owners of a perfectly normal animal that causes injury just by behaving in a way typical of its species (3). The CLA's view is that it is unfair and unworkable for equine and livestock businesses to have to pay for accidents where all reasonable preventative steps have been taken.

 

One CLA member saw their annual premium rise 200 per cent (£2,000 to £6,000) in a two year period after a claim was brought against their riding school for an accident beyond their control. A school and livery yard saw an increase of 140 per cent (£5,000 to £12,000) in a two year period – without any claims being brought within that time.

 

David Fursdon added: "A Government consultation on the issue was mooted but we are not aware that this has yet been set in motion. In any case, consultation should not be an excuse for inaction. The case here is clear; we have the evidence of adverse affects such as vast increases in insurance costs and in some cases, an inability to obtain insurance at all – effectively putting some equine businesses out of business overnight."

 

Footnotes:

 

1. The EDM number 1010 was tabled on 28 February 2007 by Jim Paice, Shadow Agriculture minister and Conservative member for South East Cambridgeshire. It already has the support of 22 MPs. It states: "That this House notes that horse-riding establishments continue to encounter difficulty with insurance claims following accidents and in obtaining insurance cover generally following the House of Lords interpretation of the Animals Act 1971 in the case of Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] 2 AII ER 401; further notes that this decision has limited the availability of insurance and increased the cost, adversely affecting the commercial viability of the equine sector; further notes the campaign initiated in 2005 by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) to have the Animals Act amended; and urges the Government to resolve this issue as soon as possible."

 

2. Animals Act 1971. This Act places strict liability (i.e. a causal link between the damage and the animal just has to be shown there is no requirement for the claimant to establish fault - subject to a few limited defences) on the keeper of animals that cause harm, where the following points are satisfied:
(a) the damage is of a kind which the animal unless restrained was likely to cause or which if caused by the animal was likely to be severe; and
(b) the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and
(c) those characteristics were known to the keeper

In the Mirhavedy case (Mirhavedy v Henley [2003] 2 All ER 401) the court was deciding the meaning of (b) and whether it referred just to a particularly dangerous individual animal or, in addition, to a perfectly normal animal that was displaying dangerous characteristics typical of the species at particular times/ in particular circumstances (for example cows with calves who encounter dogs). Clearly this latter interpretation is of much broader scope, and in the end was the interpretation favoured by the House of Lords (a majority decision 3:2). The facts of the Mirhavedy case put this interpretation into context. Horses owned by the Henleys escaped from a field onto a road on which Mr Mirhavedy was driving. Mr Mirhavedy was seriously injured. Something had spooked the horses, which was not the fault of the owners. There was nothing wrong with the fencing. The simple cause was the tendency of horses when sufficiently scared to smash through any barrier and keep running. This was known by the Henleys to be behaviour typical of horses, behaviour that they were powerless to prevent. The Henleys were found not to have been negligent, but were liable to pay for the harm caused as the facts within the court's interpretation of the Animals Act. This interpretation means that the strict liability regime under the Act applies not just to an owner who knows that they have a dangerous individual animal but to those who know that their perfectly normal animal could cause harm given particular times/circumstances although behaving in a way typical of that species.

 

3. For example, this means that if a horse bolts after being spooked, the owner can be liable for any damage or injury – even if he or she had taken every precaution possible. Similarly, if a cow acts aggressively to protect its calf and injures a dog walker, the farmer can be liable – even if the walker is exercising the new right of access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) - a right that was granted to the public for them to walk, with dogs, over large tracts of grazing land which farmers need to rear their calves.