Recent developments in horse owners’ liabilities

The contentious issue of strict liability for horses is firmly back on the agenda.

In 2003, I represented one of the parties before the House of Lords in the case of Mirvahedy v Henley. Hossein Mirvahedy had suffered serious injuries when his car collided with a horse owned by Dr and Mrs Henley on A380.

The House of Lords decided that Dr and Mrs Henley were not negligent in any way but they were liable to Mr Mirvahedy under the provisions of the Animals Act 1971.

This perceived inequity to horse owners prompted Laurence Robertson MP to introduce a “10 minute Rule” Bill last month called the “Accidents Involving Animals (Strict Liability) Bill”.

Mr Robertson’s Bill seeks to amend the Animals Act 1971 to provide for a defence of “reasonable care”. In his speech, Mr Robertson said:

“the wording of the Act …… is a little tortuous and unclear, but it seems to suggest that the owner of an animal is always liable for damages if that animal is involved in an accident regardless of the steps taken to avoid such an accident happening”.

All commentators agree that the wording of the Act is unclear. Indeed, in the House of Lords’ Judgment in Mirvahedy v Henley, Lord Nicholls himself said:

“Unfortunately, the language of Section 2 (2) is itself opaque. In this instance the parliamentary draftsman’s zeal for brevity has led to obscurity”.

However, the owner of an animal is not always liable for damage under the current law. A Claimant still has to prove certain key things in order to succeed with his or her case. A recent Court of Appeal decision (Bowlt v Clarke 26.6.06) found for the defendant when his horse moved into the road and collided with a car causing injuries to the driver and damage to the car. The claimant had not proved the necessary criteria under the Animals Act to establish strict liability.

“10 minute Bills” are not always serious attempts at legislation. They are often used to test opinion on a subject and to emphasise the need to change the law. If Mr Robertson’s Bill brings further clarity to this area of the law it will be applauded by both Claimants and Defendants alike. Even better for everyone would be an entirely new Act of Parliament rather than simply an amendment to the existing legislation.

Published 18/09/2006.