EWJ FEB 59 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 80
Spring not only brings new life but often a rise in
claims of sheep/cattle worrying. We have seen claims
brought for dogs attacking horses under Section 2(2),
the latest claim being Koetsier v Thomas [2023] which
provides useful guidance on the duty of care owed by
dog owners. Under the Animals Act 1971 there is specific legislation under Section 3 applying strict liability
“where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring
livestock, any person who is a keeper of the dog is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by
this Act”. The test for whether someone is a keeper remains as per Section 6(3) of the Act. The farmer/land
owner would be required to prove causation i.e. that
the injury was caused by the dog in question. This is
likely to be fairly easily satisfied with CCTV or eye witness testimony. The definition of livestock extends to
all animals kept for the purposes of food,
wool/skins/fur or for farming. With a rise in ‘dog reactivity’ particularly with lockdown puppies that have
not been socialised or exposed to the likes of cows or
sheep, there is a real risk of damage/injury.
the growing concern on farming profit margins, any
reputational risk should be carefully considered.
Considerations for insurers
While third party liability cover for claims arising from
domestic animals not on the dangerous dogs register
are contained in most pet and household policies,
these tend to exclude liability for dogs with a history of
aggressive behaviour. In addition, according to the
ABI, there is only one insurance provider of liability
cover for dangerous dogs.
With the ban on the XL Bully breed, insurers will be
alive to considerations such as 1) whether policies have
been affected by the ban; 2) whether their customers
are aware of its effect on cover; and 3) whether to continue to offer third party cover for exempt dogs.
Generally, incidents which occurred before the ban
will continue to be covered under the policy. Cover for
incidents occurring after the ban will be subject to individual policy terms and insurers will need to consider, amongst other things, whether the policy has
expressly excluded cover for dangerous dogs.
Injuring or worrying livestock is a criminal offence
under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
There does not need to have been a specific attack or
contact, such as a bite, to fulfil the criteria. Rather, all
that is needed is that a dog chases livestock or is at
large, off lead or otherwise not under control, in a field
containing livestock in a way that may reasonably be
expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock.
The concern in such instances is that such stress
caused to a sheep/cow as a result of a dog merely being
at large in a field can result in death.
If not expressly excluded, it should be considered
whether the breed of the dog in question has been
confirmed and whether the owner has complied with
the relevant statutory requirements such as holding a
valid exemption certificate and complying with the
relevant conditions for owning a banned breed.
For more information on Kennedys Animals and
Agricultural Forum, please contact
Lyric McDonald,
Lyric.McDonald@kennedyslaw.com.
How to assist the farming community and keep dog
owners away from criminal or civil action
Farmers should put up signs and reminders that dogs
should be kept on a lead in specific areas highlighting
what type of livestock is present. Temporary fencing
can be placed to provide a boundary between footpaths in high risk seasons, for example when ewes are
pregnant. There is also a need to educate dog owners
of the importance of training and understanding of a
dog’s potential hunting instinct.
Joe Lewin and Isobel Budgen, Trainee Solicitors at
Kennedys contributed to this article.
Dr Marzio Ascione
Neuropsychologist
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
CPsychol, PsychD
Dr Marzio Ascione has over 20 years of experience assessing and treating a wide
range of psychological and neuropsychological conditions.
It is important to highlight Section 9 of the Act to both
the farming community and dog owners. As a last resort only, farmers have a defence for killing a dog who
is worrying their livestock. The famer must evidence
that their actions were undertaken solely for the protection of any livestock, the dog in question must have
been worrying or about to worry the livestock and
there must be no other reasonable means of ending or
preventing the dog’s actions. If such an action occurs
this must be reported within 48 hours. If the conditions cannot be evidenced, farmers may face charges
of criminal damage.
Area of work: UK Nationwide and worldwide
Areas of expertise include:
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA)
• Cognitive and intellectual functioning, including memory, attention,
and executive functioning
• Malingering assessments
• Fitness to plead
• Fitness to stand trial
• Disposal and pre-sentencing reports
• Anxiety disorders
• Depression
• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
When such a step is taken, it should be on a reactive
basis. While the desire to protect one’s land and livestock is understandable, farmers should steer away
from excessively dangerous means of doing so to
avoid exposing them to a claim under the Occupier’s
Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984. For example, a barbed
wire fence, rather than a simple wire fence designed to
keep out a dog, could also cause an injury to person.
Additionally, in a world where social media use is
prevalent, there is a reputational risk for farmers and
dog owners should such actions arise. In considering
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Dr Ascione also has more than a decade of experience as an Expert Witness,
working with solicitors to provide expert assessments, evidence-based reports,
and court testimony.
Contact
Tel: 01223 323 575
Email: info@cbtneuropsychologycentre.co.uk
Website: www.cbtneuropsychologycentre.co.uk
Address: CBT & Neuropsychology Centre,
1 Anderson Court, Newnham Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB39EZ
78
F E B R UA RY 2 0 2 5
