Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16

A horse, startled by an unknown cause, bolted from its field onto a road and collided with the claimant's car, causing injury. The House of Lords held the keepers strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971, establishing a wide interpretation of liability.

Facts

The appellants, Mr and Mrs Henley, were keepers of several horses in a field adjacent to a main road. The field was secured by fencing and an electric fence. For an unknown reason, one of the horses, described as normally quiet and placid, was startled. Along with two other horses, it panicked, broke through the fencing, and galloped nearly a quarter of a mile onto the A380 dual carriageway. The respondent, Mr Mirvahedy, was driving on this road when the horse ran into the path of his car, resulting in a serious collision and significant personal injury to Mr Mirvahedy. The keepers were not found to be negligent in any way regarding the security of their field.

Issues

The central legal issue was the proper construction of section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971. This section imposes strict liability on the keeper of an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species. The key question was whether liability arose under section 2(2)(b) when the damage was caused by a characteristic normal to the species (the tendency of a horse to bolt when frightened), but which only manifested ‘at particular times or in particular circumstances’. The appellants argued for a narrow interpretation, suggesting that liability under this subsection should only apply if the characteristic itself was abnormal for the species. The respondent argued for a wider interpretation, that liability applies if a normal characteristic is triggered in particular circumstances, causing severe damage.

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a 3-2 majority, dismissed the appeal, finding the keepers strictly liable.

Majority Opinion

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead delivered the leading speech for the majority. He advanced a wide interpretation of section 2(2), holding that all three conditions for liability were met. He reasoned that the ‘times or circumstances’ qualifier in subsection 2(2)(b) was intended to cover situations where an animal displays a characteristic only intermittently, such as when provoked or frightened. He stated:

The characteristic is that of being likely to cause severe damage. The characteristic need not be continuously present. It is sufficient that the animal has the characteristic ‘at particular times or in particular circumstances’. Such as when it is frightened or provoked… A frightened horse which bolts is a classic instance of this.

On the second condition, whether this characteristic was due to its being abnormal for the species, Lord Nicholls found the opposite. He concluded that the tendency to bolt when frightened was a well-known and normal characteristic of horses as a species. This interpretation meant that the condition relating to abnormality was satisfied because the characteristic of ‘being likely…to cause severe damage’ manifested only in the particular circumstance of being frightened, and that characteristic (bolting) was normal for the species. This effectively meant the Act imposed strict liability for damage caused by the normal, but dangerous, behaviour of non-dangerous species in specific situations.

Dissenting Opinion

Lord Scott and Lord Hobhouse dissented, arguing for a narrower construction of the Act. They contended that the purpose of section 2(2)(b) was to impose liability only where the specific animal had an abnormal characteristic not normally found in the species. In their view, if the characteristic was normal for the species (like a horse bolting), it should fall under section 2(2)(a), which deals with damage caused by dangerous species. As a horse is not a dangerous species, liability could not attach. Lord Hobhouse stated:

It follows that since the characteristic of a horse to bolt when frightened is a normal characteristic (as all the judges in this case have held), the appellants cannot be liable under s.2(2)(b). To hold otherwise is to say that the keeper of a normal animal is to be strictly liable for damage which it has caused when behaving normally. This is not what the Act provides.

Implications

The decision in Mirvahedy v Henley significantly broadened the scope of strict liability for keepers of non-dangerous animals under the Animals Act 1971. It established that a keeper can be strictly liable for severe damage caused by an animal exhibiting behaviour that is entirely normal for its species, provided that behaviour is only triggered in particular circumstances. This has profound implications for farmers, pet owners, and especially horse keepers, placing a heavy burden of liability on them for events that may occur without any fault on their part. The decision shifted a significant portion of the risk of such accidents from road users to animal keepers and their insurers, leading to wide criticism and calls for legislative reform of the Act.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The keepers of the horse were held strictly liable.

Source: Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16