Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16

Mr Mirvahedy was seriously injured when his car collided with a horse that had escaped from the Henleys' field after being frightened and stampeding through fences. Despite no negligence by the horse owners, the House of Lords held they were strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 for damage caused by characteristics normal to horses only in particular circumstances.

Facts

Shortly after midnight on 29 August 1996, three horses belonging to Dr and Mrs Henley escaped from their field after being frightened by an unknown cause. The horses stampeded, flattening an electric wire fence and surrounding wooden fence, and fled almost a mile to the A380 dual carriageway. Mr Mirvahedy’s car collided with one of the horses, causing him serious personal injuries. The trial judge found no negligence on the part of the Henleys regarding the fencing of their field.

The Horses’ Behaviour

Expert evidence established that it is normal for horses, when severely frightened, to panic, attempt to flee ignoring obstacles in their path, and continue flight for considerable distances. The horses were still in a state of panic when they reached the highway, crashing into vehicles rather than being struck by them.

Issues

The central issue was the proper interpretation of section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971, specifically whether strict liability is imposed on the keeper of an animal when the animal’s behaviour, though dangerous, was entirely normal for animals of that species in the particular circumstances.

Two Competing Interpretations

The ‘Cummings interpretation’ held that the second limb of section 2(2)(b) creates an alternative head of liability where behaviour is normal for the species only at particular times or in particular circumstances. The ‘Breeden interpretation’ held that the second limb merely refines what constitutes abnormality, and no strict liability attaches when an animal behaves normally for its species in those circumstances.

Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal by a 3-2 majority. Lords Nicholls, Hobhouse and Walker held that the Cummings interpretation was correct and the respondent was entitled to recover. Lords Slynn and Scott dissented, favouring the Breeden interpretation.

Majority Reasoning

Lord Nicholls held that the Cummings interpretation accorded more naturally with the statutory language. He noted that damage caused by a newly-calved cow or guard dog fits readily into the statutory description of damage due to characteristics not normally found except in particular circumstances.

Lord Walker observed that while horses are classified as not belonging to a dangerous species, bulls, cows and horses are large, strong animals that are certainly dangerous in particular circumstances. He found nothing unjust in the keepers bearing the loss rather than the innocent victim who suffered serious injuries.

Dissenting Opinions

Lord Slynn considered that if Parliament had intended strict liability where damage is caused by characteristics normal at particular times, it would have been simply stated. Lord Scott argued that Parliament intended to distinguish between dangerous and non-dangerous animals, with strict liability for the latter limited to damage attributable to abnormal characteristics.

Implications

This decision confirms that keepers of domesticated animals can be strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 for damage caused by behaviour that is normal for the species in particular circumstances, provided the keeper knew of those characteristics. The decision places the risk of such incidents on those who choose to keep animals, even when exercising reasonable care. It emphasises that those keeping horses or other large animals must accept the unavoidable risks involved and may consider insurance against such risks.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed by a 3-2 majority. The Henleys were held strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 for the damage caused by their horse, notwithstanding that the horse was behaving normally for its species in the particular circumstances of being severely frightened.

Source: Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16