header-logo header-logo

Apil opposes animal liability reform

09 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal Injury

A proposed reform to the law on strict liability for injuries caused by animals has come under fire from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil).
The government is proposing to amend Animals Act 1971, s 2 which imposes strict liability on keepers of animals that cause harm or damage.
Currently, keepers of non-dangerous animals are strictly liable for harm if the animal had known dangerous characteristics shared by other animals within the species.

A House of Lords judgment in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003], in which the owners of a horse which spooked and bolted onto a dual carriageway were held strictly liable for the injuries that resulted, confirmed a broad interpretation of this law. This case is widely believed to have led to a significant increase in insurance premiums for equine and other animal-related rural businesses.

The proposed amendment offers keepers of animals a defence if they can show there was no particular reason to expect the animal to react in that way, and will reduce the number of claims that can be made.

However, John McQuater, president of Apil, said: “Whether it is a dog bite which leaves a child disfigured, or injuries caused by a horse on the road, there will be less protection for victims.

“The fact that the Government is making changes through the back door with little time for parliamentary debate is totally unacceptable.”

Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll