Esther Stirling and Tamsin Hyland are solicitors in the dispute resolution department. Both horse-owners and IH followers, they deal with disputes involving horses, amongst others. Q: How do you stand if your horse kicks / bites a dog when you are riding it? Specifically farm dogs that come out to bother you when you are on a public highway (the dogs don't actually attack the horses, just make a lot of noise and run about). Luckily mine's a saint with dogs, but we've got a newbie on the yard whose obviously had some bad experiences and I can see it happening soon. If the other horses aren't bothered and this one is then does that imply fault with the horses owner (i.e. they should have de-sensitised their horse)? Or should the farmer have his dogs under control either way? A: We all commonly encounter dogs while out hacking. No matter how well behaved we think our horses (and dogs!) are, an accident could easily result. In this article, we look at how either the keeper of a horse or dog, or both, might be liable in the unfortunate event that injury occurred, focussing on civil liability.
In our last article, we looked at the Animals Act 1971 which imposes strict (automatic) liability for the keeper of an animal which causes damage or injury. We also looked at duties of care which users of the highway owe to others. Landowners also owe a duty of care towards people using their land. Failing to exercise a reasonable standard of care can lead to liability in negligence. The Animals Act contains specific provisions concerning dogs, and further legislation (including the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) also govern dog owners’ liabilities.
The owner of a dog which worries livestock may be guilty of a criminal offence. ‘Livestock’ includes horses. ‘Worrying’ not only includes attacking but also chasing such that injury might be expected to result. If the horse is trespassing at the time, however, this may provide a defence for the dog owner. You would be trespassing if, for example, you left a designated bridleway without the agreement of the landowner. In civil law, the Animals Act 1971 specifically provides that the keeper of a dog which kills or injures livestock will be strictly liable for the damage it causes unless – importantly – the owner of the livestock is at fault. The particular circumstances of each case would need to be examined and we deal below with potential liability of the horse owner/rider. In addition to these specific provisions, landowners also owe a general duty of care to ‘visitors’ on their land. Visitors include users of footpaths and bridleways, and can include trespassers in some circumstances. A dog owner who was using a bridleway or footpath, would also owe a rider/owner a duty to take reasonable care. If either party failed to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury, they may be liable for damages in negligence. What amounts to ‘reasonable care’ depends on all the circumstances, but may include failing, for example, to keep a dog on a lead if it were reasonable to do so. In short, then, the dog owner may find themselves liable in negligence and/or strictly liable under the Animals Act and potentially criminally liable. This does not mean, however, that the horse owner/rider would not face potential liability too.
As an owner/rider you owe a duty of care to others. Failing to discharge that duty may result a claim against you in negligence. If you or your horse were to injure a dog, then, you may find yourself facing a claim in damages. It may be a defence (again under the Animals Act 1971) to show that you were acting to protect livestock which the dog was worrying, again including horses. If you were trespassing at the time, however, this defence may not be available. Where an accident appears to have been caused by more than one party liability will, generally speaking, be divided between them in proportion to their responsibility for it. An injured party whose actions contribute to their own injury may have their damages reduced as a result. Turning to the specific question, if a horse were to react particularly badly to a barking dog, resulting in injury to either or both, a complex claim could result. The horse owner could point to the dog owner’s failure to keep the dog under proper control and may have a claim against them either in negligence for worrying livestock under the legislation referred to above. The dog owner may well rely on the horse’s reaction to dogs to defend the claim. Furthermore, any failure properly to control/desensitise a horse could form the basis of a separate negligence claim against the rider/owner. All of the circumstances would be taken into account in assessing liability.
As ever, we need to take a common sense approach to try to avoid accidents. We will, naturally, encounter dogs on many of the rides we enjoy. A dog, particularly one which infrequently sees horses coming through its territory, may well bark as part of its normal behaviour. Always take notice of warning signs, and stick to permitted routes. Desensitising your horse to dogs, with professional help if necessary, and hacking with more experienced horses, may be sensible to reduce the risk of an accident. Q: I use a Dually halter and find it much the safest way to lead a horse. People tell me that I must lead out using a bridle because if there were an accident a bridle is the only recognised way to lead and I would be held automatically liable. Is this true? A: As the Dually halter grows in popularity, increasing numbers of people consider this question, though they may find that the halter gives them more, not less, control when leading. As with most legal problems, the answer is never black and white. A party who is involved in an accident is very seldom ‘automatically liable’, though accidents involving animals can lead to a finding of strict liability under the Animals Act. In this article, we discuss the principles which would be applied to determine civil liability in the event of an accident, in the context of using a Dually.
All users of the highway owe a duty of care to others to proceed with care. If someone does not take reasonable care and causes damage or injury, they may be found liable to pay damages to an injured party under the law of negligence. What amounts to reasonable care depends on the circumstances. If you lead along a busy high street, for example, you would be expected to exercise a higher degree of care than if you are on a quiet country lane. The Highway Code is one yardstick establishing what amounts to ‘reasonable care’. Rule 52 states: “Before you take a horse on the road, you should…make sure you can control the horse…” and that you should: “Never ride a horse without both a saddle and bridle” Drivers are warned that to take extra care on country roads, being prepared for horses. The Highway Code does not specify that a bridle must be used when leading, as opposed to riding. It does not specify in what kind of bridle you must ride. Nevertheless, it’s clear that you should ensure that you can control the horse. The word should is important: failure to comply is not a criminal offence, but will be relevant in establishing whether you are liable in negligence.
Under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, the keeper of an animal can be held strictly liable for damage it causes, i.e. they will have no defence to reduce their liability. In general terms, an owner or handler will be liable if: their animal was likely to cause severe damage this was due to abnormal characteristics, or characteristics only found in particular circumstances which the owner or handler knew about. The courts have applied this test inconsistently, leading to uncertainty. For example, in Mirvahedy v Henley (2003), a frightened horse broke several fences and hit a car, causing injury. The owner was liable under the Animals Act: the horse was not behaving in a ‘normal’ way, but bolting as the horse had done was usual in the particular circumstances of the case. In contrast, in Welsh v Stokes (2007), the owner of a horse which reared and injured its rider was not liable, even though the horse had no history of rearing and so was arguably behaving ‘abnormally’. There have been recent moves to amend the Act, to limit its application, protecting those who take reasonable steps to prevent an accident. For now, while uncertain, it remains the law.
There has been recent discussion in the press about the extent to which insurance cover may be invalidated if a bit is not used. The British Horse Society have recently clarified that their insurance does cover users of bitless bridles. Each insurance policy is governed by its own terms and conditions, however, including specific exclusions. You should check these carefully. If in doubt, consult your insurers, or a solicitor.
In the event of accident, there are two possible kinds of liability for damage caused by a horse: liability under the law of negligence and under the Animals Act 1971. Liability in negligence is the more common and depends upon whether you had taken reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. Animals Act liability is strict, and generally requires a horse to exhibit unusual characteristics, or normal characteristics in unusual circumstances, but the law here is not always applied consistently. Each case will depend on its particular facts, but consider whether you could demonstrate that you exercised reasonable care, and were sufficiently in control of your horse, given:
Use of a Dually may well be raised by an injured party, but to establish liability, in general terms, they would need to show this led you to be insufficiently in control of the horse, or to the horse behaving in a particularly dangerous way. It would be one of many factors to be taken into account. It would not, in itself, lead to an ‘automatic’ finding of liability. Henmans LLP handles commercial and personal matters for individual and business clients, with expertise in the rural and agricultural sector. For more information contact Esther Stirling or Tamsin Hyland.
Henmans LLP 5000 Oxford Business Park South Oxford OX4 2BH
Tel: 01865 781000 Fax: 01865 778504 welcome@henmansllp.co.uk