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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll