EWJ FEB 59 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 79
It’s a Dog’s Life - Liability for
Animals: the Animals Act 1971
and Dangerous Dogs
This article was authored by Georgina Cox, Senior Associate, Kennedys.
With a string of high profile incidents involving animals, along with the XL Bully dog ban,
it is important now more than ever for both owners and their insurers to understand the
legislation in place around damage caused by animals.
Finally, the keeper must have actual knowledge of
these abnormal characteristics. It is not enough to say
that a keeper ought to have known, but knowledge
could be established from previous incidents or an
animal’s history of displaying aggressive tendencies.
What is the current law?
The Animals Act 1971 (the Act) imposes strict liability
on “keepers” of animals of dangerous species for damage caused by their animals. This means the keeper
of the animal is responsible for any injury caused, and
the injured party does not have to prove any negligence on the part of the keeper. Importantly, lack of
control at the time of the incident does not prevent a
person from being a keeper and there can be multiple
keepers in law. For example, when a dog owner leaves
their dog with a day carer/walker, they remain a
keeper of the dog even though they were not present
when an incident happens. responsible.
It is important for all animal owners to understand
the various provisions of the Act, along with the defences available, to determine whether they may be liable in the event of an animal-related incident. The
above-mentioned factors are also likely to have a
bearownering on insurance cover, aand it is vital for
keepers of animals to ensure that adequate cover is in
place.
For other animals which are not automatically considered to be “dangerous species” under the Act, a
keeper of the animal is liable for the damage (except
as otherwise provided under the Act) if:
The Animals Act 1971 and dangerous dogs
Civil claims under the Animals Act 1971 apply to all
breeds of dogs, rather than solely banned breeds. A
prosecution under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 may
throw weight behind a civil claim because the threshold for prosecution is higher than the respective civil
threshold.
1. The damage is of a kind which the animal, unless
restrained, was likely to cause, or which was likely
to be severe.
When considering the likelihood of causing damage,
if an animal can reasonably be expected to cause damage of the kind suffered, this is sufficient. The animal’s
history is a relevant factor in deciding this. If a
claimant is seeking to rely on the likelihood of severity of the damage, a balance of probabilities test is
applied (Preskey v Sutcliffe [2013]).
The Dangerous Dogs Act is an example of ‘breed
specific legislation’ which works on the assumption
that certain breeds are inherently dangerous. This is
an assumption which is often supported by popular
news media which links certain breeds with dog bite
related accidents and fatalities.
There are five banned dog breeds in the UK, including most recently the XL Bully. Identifying whether a
dog falls into a banned breed type can be challenging.
The animal’s classification has no foundation in its
parentage or genetics. Visual identification of breeds
by experts is known to be difficult, even by professionals, and is not always a reliable determinator.
2. 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 found except at
particular times/ circumstances.
The next step is to consider whether the likelihood or
severity of the damage was due to an “abnormal characteristic” of the animal. Expert evidence will assist
with determining this, but only if the animal is assessed
in person and rapidly following the event in question.
Factors such as the animal’s size, nature and strength
are relevant (rendering certain dog breeds more susceptible to possessing these abnormal characteristics).
This leaves ambiguity for dog owners and their insurers alike in determining whether they are the
owner of a banned breed under the Act. This is a particularly fresh concern for those who own dogs which
may fall within the classification of an XL Bully.
A precautionary approach to complying with the
statutory requirements is recommended where a dog
may fall within the banned breed classification.
3. Those characteristics were known to that keeper,
which includes any person who had charge of the
animal at the time, or another person of the animal
who is a member of the household and under the
age of 16 (where the keeper is the head of the household).
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Impact on farming/agriculture and considerations
for owners
It may be in a dog’s nature to chase but specific care
and consideration needs to be given around livestock.
77
F E B R UA RY 2 0 2 5
