Amazing and unfair - Anmimals Act 1971

[geoffm]

I was staggered to read today the letter from Bill Barton in the February/March issue of cycle.

I find it incredible (and totally unjust) that responsibility for meeting the cost of the damage suffered by Bill can be completely rebutted, by sheltering behind the Animals Act 1971.

It seems totally at odds with all other aspects of life in general and in particular with the obligations of other types of road users, should they accidently cause damage to property or injury to a third party.

What if the consequences of the incident Bill was innocently involved in had also included injury or even death as a result of the behaviour of the horse?

Should the CTC use its considerable powers to rapidly bring about a change to the law, which Paul Kitson, in response to Bill’s letter, describes as ‘badly drafted and poorly understood’?

[thelawnet]

Most of us have note read the letter in question, perhaps you could precis?

[[XAP]Bob]

Cyclists stops on verge of road, horse passes then throws riders and kicks bike.


That's the sort of thing that a stable's insurance should cover IMHO (wouldn't be expensive insurance, into the same way as outs isn't)

[meic]

The stable insurance will cover for legal liabilities, now this Animals Act states that there is no such liability.
Which would make any pay out a gift in the name of decency, Insurance companies dont do gifts, do they?

I dont think that cyclists should take on this Act, the big boys in the motor industry have more to fear from it than we do and they have the lobbying power.

[[XAP]Bob]

I was ignoring the law and stating what I thought was an appropriate response.

I can't recall anything about the law in question, which implies that it was rather like a sheep (woolly)

[Anglian]

The stable insurance will cover for legal liabilities, now this Animals Act states that there is no such liability.
Which would make any pay out a gift in the name of decency, Insurance companies dont do gifts, do they?

I dont think that cyclists should take on this Act, the big boys in the motor industry have more to fear from it than we do and they have the lobbying power.

The latter part sounds unlikely. Insurance providers like mandatory insurance requirements, since it enables them to write more, or larger, policies.

If the law changed to create a new liability, then this would probably create a force majeur situation, which would permit insurance companies to require additional premia for policies currently in force, to cover the new liability which didn't exist at the time the policy was create (and this seems perfectly fair and reasonable).

this is the second time today I've written a note on here to correct a prejudiced misconception about the insurance industry; perhaps if we dropped our prejudices and used a little more common sense, we might be better advocates, lobbyists, and indeed use insurance products better to our advantage.

Regards,
Anglian.

[[XAP]Bob]

The stable insurance will cover for legal liabilities, now this Animals Act states that there is no such liability.
Which would make any pay out a gift in the name of decency, Insurance companies dont do gifts, do they?

I dont think that cyclists should take on this Act, the big boys in the motor industry have more to fear from it than we do and they have the lobbying power.

The latter part sounds unlikely. Insurance providers like mandatory insurance requirements, since it enables them to write more, or larger, policies.

If the law changed to create a new liability, then this would probably create a force majeur situation, which would permit insurance companies to require additional premia for policies currently in force, to cover the new liability which didn't exist at the time the policy was create (and this seems perfectly fair and reasonable).

this is the second time today I've written a note on here to correct a prejudiced misconception about the insurance industry; perhaps if we dropped our prejudices and used a little more common sense, we might be better advocates, lobbyists, and indeed use insurance products better to our advantage.

Regards,
Anglian.

No suggestion that it should be mandatory - but the "get kicked by a horse on a public road", "sorry mate" isn't a reasonable position.

Public liability insurance covers all sorts. If I've never had a brake failure before but my brakes fail and I plow through a crowded busstop in a vehicle then I'd expect my 3rd party insurance to pay out - not to say "oh this doesn't happen often with this vehicle so you don't get any recompense"

[karlt]

The stable insurance will cover for legal liabilities, now this Animals Act states that there is no such liability.
Which would make any pay out a gift in the name of decency, Insurance companies dont do gifts, do they?

I dont think that cyclists should take on this Act, the big boys in the motor industry have more to fear from it than we do and they have the lobbying power.

The latter part sounds unlikely. Insurance providers like mandatory insurance requirements, since it enables them to write more, or larger, policies.

If the law changed to create a new liability, then this would probably create a force majeur situation, which would permit insurance companies to require additional premia for policies currently in force, to cover the new liability which didn't exist at the time the policy was create (and this seems perfectly fair and reasonable).

this is the second time today I've written a note on here to correct a prejudiced misconception about the insurance industry; perhaps if we dropped our prejudices and used a little more common sense, we might be better advocates, lobbyists, and indeed use insurance products better to our advantage.

Regards,
Anglian.

No suggestion that it should be mandatory - but the "get kicked by a horse on a public road", "sorry mate" isn't a reasonable position.

Public liability insurance covers all sorts. If I've never had a brake failure before but my brakes fail and I plow through a crowded busstop in a vehicle then I'd expect my 3rd party insurance to pay out - not to say "oh this doesn't happen often with this vehicle so you don't get any recompense"

It might not. Third party insurance is liability insurance. Liability is created when you fail in a duty, either statutory or common law - i.e. you are negligent. If your brakes fail through no fault of yours, then there's no negligence, hence no liability, hence your insurers may not pay out.

Having said that, the assumption would be that you had failed to maintain your brakes properly.

[Swallow]

Here's another sad incident http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Police- ... story.html I know the car owners will (should) have insurance but does the owner of the horses have any liability? The horses may have been let out deliberately,there has just been an incident near this area of a horse being savagely tortured and killed, or a gate may have been left open by walkers or they may have been spooked and bolted. I don't know how you would sort out liability in this case. I just hope the injured make a full recovery. I know it's a different situation from the OP, just wondering if the act covers a situation like this.

[iviehoff]

Basically the Animals Act seems to say, albeit rather unclearly, that if an animal owner has taken reasonable steps to protect you from the expected actions of their animal, then they are not liable for any damage caused by the animal behaving in an unexpected way. Any court case is a mess because whether an animal might have been expected to behave like that is the kind of thing that is frequently hard to demonstrate either way.

Personally I think a person should be entirely liable for what their animal does. After all, they are entirely liable for their own actions, even if it is out of character and would be surprising. So why shouldn't they be entirely liable for what their animal does.

I think a lot of people agree with me, and occasionally a law to that effect has been proposed. But politicians back down for fear of upsetting dog-owners, horse-owners, farmers, etc.

[snibgo]

The Animal Act 1971 seems to say that if a horse attacks my bike, the rider is only liable if the rider knew it tended to attack bikes (plus some other conditions). And I would need to prove that, of course.

This smacks of a law made by the landed gentry, for the landed gentry.

[Tacascarow]

The Animal Act 1971 seems to say that if a horse attacks my bike, the rider is only liable if the rider knew it tended to attack bikes (plus some other conditions). And I would need to prove that, of course.

This smacks of a law made by the landed gentry, for the landed gentry.

I'm surprised there is no empathy here for others who after all are also vulnerable road users.
I'm not a horse rider but coming from a rural community know many & in the majority of cases if a horse rears or kicks out at another road user the cause is usually passing to close or fast or even (I've witnessed this one) blasting a horn & revving engines.
All things we as cyclists complain about all the time, but when you involve a horse the results can be tragic as Swallow has highlighted.
The vast majority of riders are competent & insured through the British Horse Society but like cycling it's not a legal requirement.
As for a law made for the landed gentry, the majority of riders these days are ordinary people & as the average wage in most rural communities is way below that of the inner city obviously a comment from someone who's not aware of the facts.

[meic]

The stable insurance will cover for legal liabilities, now this Animals Act states that there is no such liability.
Which would make any pay out a gift in the name of decency, Insurance companies dont do gifts, do they?

I dont think that cyclists should take on this Act, the big boys in the motor industry have more to fear from it than we do and they have the lobbying power.

The latter part sounds unlikely. Insurance providers like mandatory insurance requirements, since it enables them to write more, or larger, policies.

If the law changed to create a new liability, then this would probably create a force majeur situation, which would permit insurance companies to require additional premia for policies currently in force, to cover the new liability which didn't exist at the time the policy was create (and this seems perfectly fair and reasonable).

this is the second time today I've written a note on here to correct a prejudiced misconception about the insurance industry; perhaps if we dropped our prejudices and used a little more common sense, we might be better advocates, lobbyists, and indeed use insurance products better to our advantage.

Regards,
Anglian.

Sorry but I have totally failed to spot the misconception or its correction!

[Si]

The Animal Act 1971 seems to say that if a horse attacks my bike, the rider is only liable if the rider knew it tended to attack bikes (plus some other conditions). And I would need to prove that, of course.

This smacks of a law made by the landed gentry, for the landed gentry.

I'm surprised there is no empathy here for others who after all are also vulnerable road users.
I'm not a horse rider but coming from a rural community know many & in the majority of cases if a horse rears or kicks out at another road user the cause is usually passing to close or fast or even (I've witnessed this one) blasting a horn & revving engines.
All things we as cyclists complain about all the time, but when you involve a horse the results can be tragic as Swallow has highlighted.
The vast majority of riders are competent & insured through the British Horse Society but like cycling it's not a legal requirement.
As for a law made for the landed gentry, the majority of riders these days are ordinary people & as the average wage in most rural communities is way below that of the inner city obviously a comment from someone who's not aware of the facts.

I think that you'll find that in the case discussed the cyclist had pulled over and climbed onto the verge to let the horse past. He was standing still when the horse kicked out. I don't see what further he is supposed to have done?

So, if you are doing nothing at all to provoke or scare the horse and the horse damages your property do you really think that it is wrong to feel aggrieved?

[Tonyf33]

partners horse is excellent around people, kids making noises, bicycles been ridden very close (i've cycled alongside within stroking distance) and even farm vehicles et al, however she knows he's a big scaredy cat when it comes to fluttery things like plastic bags, crisp packets etc (One's in trees are the getting thrown off incidents). It's meant she has not gone on the road in 14 years with him knowing how he might react. THAT is what I'd call being responsible knowing of the potential damage that might happen to rider, horse and other road users.
She'll keep him until he goes as he's a big softie characterful sod but as a riding horse he's a useless lump

One other thought is that I'm not so sure I would want a horse passing me with absolutely no-where to go (Stuck standing still on the verge) I would doubt that a horse rider would think to pass much wider of another vehicle/obstacle in the highway than maybe a cyclist would. That isn't having a pot shot at horse riders but certainly some can be oblivious to the 'reach' their own vehicle has if it get disturbed & decides to give you a 'shoeing'