Amazing and unfair - Anmimals Act 1971

[snibgo]

I'm surprised there is no empathy here for others who after all are also vulnerable road users.

Welcome to the forum.

I also live in a rural community and know a few horse riders, who are not short of a bob or two. They tell me that keeping a horse is even more expensive than a bike.

I was referring to law relating to the OP, where it seems the attack on the bike by the horse was unprovoked, although I can imagine that the horse was spooked. The question is, who is liable? The answer seems to be that legally the horse rider has no liability for the horse's actions. If the rider isn't liable, an insurer doesn't need to pay.

[jan19]

As I understood the letter, the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong,(in fact was trying to be helpful) but has ended up with a damaged bike and no payout to cover its repair.

I don't ride horses now, but I did in my younger days and I have every sympathy with a rider trying to control a nervous animal . However, the horse DID cause the damage, and therefore the rider should be liable - whether the horse has done this before or not.

If I cycled into a car which had pulled to one side in order to let me pass, I'd expect to pay.

Jan

[benm]

I am not a lawyer, nor have I yet read Cycle, however reading section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 as ammended etc. etc. etc. link it appears to me that

1) the horse is not a dangerous animal as defined etc. etc. so section 2(2) applies
2) Damage caused by a horse kicking out is 'likely to be severe' ( section 2(2)(a))
and
3) Horses don't tend to kick at bikes when the horse is in a field so the 'particular circumstances' of section (2)(2)(b) are met owing to the horse being on a road passing a stationary bike
and
4)Any horse rider (keeper) who doesn't know that horses kick out is sadly lacking in knowledge, if not to say negligent, so section 2(2)(c) is satisfied
therefore under section 2 of the act the rider IS liable for damage to the bike.

I suspect the poor cyclist in question needs a better lawyer... or perhaps I have missed something obvious - the latter may be more likely!

In any case - it is a bit sad that owners/controllers of animals don't take responsibility for their beast's actions.

B.

[meic]

Solicitors are often the bearers of bad news.
One of the points of using them is that they know "the lie of the land".

You may well enter their office thinking that you are clearly in the right only to leave, finding that the law sees it somewhat differently.
At the risk of sidetracking the thread the rules on adverse possession seems like legalised theft to me but a solicitor can inform you that they have the law on their side.

In these days were somebody has to be liable for everything the animals Act seems very odd.

I have even tried to consider scenarios like Biggles spooking a horse with his Tornado jet and thinking it is not the horse riders fault, on the other hand we are not talking fault and criminal prosecution just making good for damage done.

[gaz]

this is the second time today I've written a note on here to correct a prejudiced misconception about the insurance industry;

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

Different topic, different thread. You can't read them all.

[thirdcrank]

....the insurance industry .... insurance products ....

I'll take it you work within this trade?

[gaz]

Returning to topic the problem seems to stem from the fact that a horse (or any other animal) has a mind of it's own.

No matter how much time and effort the horse's rider may put into training the horse, nourishing it, keeping it well shod and so forth, it may throw a wobbly. Police horses may well top this kind of training scale, Wild Mustangs may be at the other end.

The Animals Act 1971 seems to be saying that if your horse does this routinely you may be liable for the consequences. If it's a matter of routine then the rider would have a duty to keep it out of situations which could be dangerous to others. However if your horse is normally placid and obedient, then you can't be responsible for it behaving out of character. Ultimately the animal is beyond your control and chooses whether or not to respond to your commands.

A mechanical device such as a car or cycle does not have a mind of it's own, it is under human control.

IMO the incident reported in Cycle is a very rare occurence. I sympathise for the cyclist.

[thirdcrank]

It's certainly true that loads of people have misconceptions about the insurance "industry." eg that's why so many were mis-sold PPI.

[mjr]

So will there be something like this act for the driverless cars that have minds of their own?

[sirmy]

There was a case concerning a horse and cart being spooked by a child throwing a stone at it and a policeman being injured bringing it under control in 1935

" COA held that D owed a duty of care to the plaintiff because it was reasonably foreseeable that D’ conduct of leaving the horses unattended in a place where mischievous children may be about and where something may happen to cause the horses to run away and thereby endangering the public and rescuers like P might be attracted to help the situation." (http://www.slideshare.net/Kulshoom/negligence-duty-of-care)

So if, say a child of 10 or 11 or even a small, or frankly average sized adult, is riding a horse down a road then it is "reasonably foreseeable" (at least in my non legal view) that that person may not be able to control the animal if spooked and a duty of care may have been breached by who ever decided to ride on the road

Doubt it would hold up in court though

[gaz]

I'm not a lawyer but I can say with complete confidence that in 1935 it wouldn't have been possible to put forward a defence under the Animals Act 1971 .

Whether or not the Animals Act 1971 would work as a defence to liability for the actions of an unattended horse in court today is another matter.

[profpointy]

There was a case concerning a horse and cart being spooked by a child throwing a stone at it and a policeman being injured bringing it under control in 1935

" COA held that D owed a duty of care to the plaintiff because it was reasonably foreseeable that D’ conduct of leaving the horses unattended in a place where mischievous children may be about and where something may happen to cause the horses to run away and thereby endangering the public and rescuers like P might be attracted to help the situation." (http://www.slideshare.net/Kulshoom/negligence-duty-of-care)

So if, say a child of 10 or 11 or even a small, or frankly average sized adult, is riding a horse down a road then it is "reasonably foreseeable" (at least in my non legal view) that that person may not be able to control the animal if spooked and a duty of care may have been breached by who ever decided to ride on the road

Doubt it would hold up in court though

What about a parent allowing a 10 year old out on a bike in traffic - would their lack of experience in riding not also be "reasonably foreseeable"?

And is this a road we want to go down?

(I don't ride horses, so just sayin' like)