Liability for animals case law

Tallents v Bell

Tallents v Bell

Cattle does not include cats and dogs

Carrington v Montrose Poultry Farms Ltd

Damages are recoverable not only for harm to the plaintiff's land and crops caused by the trespass, but also injury to his animals

Wormald v Cole

1. Plaintiff knocked down and injure by a trespassing heifer belonging to the defendant..
2. Held that the personal injuries to the plaintiff were the direct result of the trespass and the defendant was liable for the same
3. If stocks are lawfully on the road and stray into adjoining land, a claim for damages depends on negligence.
4. If stocks stray from land across a road into adjoining land, the action for cattle trespass applies
5. If stock strays onto the road and causes damage there, the action for cattle trespass has no application nor may any action for negligence

East Coast Estates Ltd v Singh

1. Cattle belonging to the defendant strayed on to the plaintiff's land and damaged 'pangola grass' which the plaintiff's were cultivating
2. Defendant alleged that, s he was driving his cattle along the road, rain began to fall and he was forced to drive the cattle into a nearby common whence, through no fault on his part they strayed on to the plaintiff's land
3. It was held that the defence could not be sustained as liability in cattle trespass is strict and the defendant was liable irrespective of nay intention or negligence on his part
5. Additionally, the defendant had driven the animals as opposed to them just straying naturally

Wawlyn v Brooks

the keeper of pigs or goats may be liable in private nuisance if the stench from the animals unreasonably interferes with his neighbour's enjoyment of his land

Cox v Burbidge

the owner of an animal mansuetæ naturæ (tame animal) is not liable for the mischief done by it unless it is shown that the animal had a vicious propensity to commit the mischief complained of and that the owner was aware of it. The possessor of the cattle may be liable if the personal injury is consequent upon the escape of cattle and if it is consonant with the ordinary nature of the class of animal concerned

Buckle v Homes

he defendant's cat strayed into the plaintiff's land and there it killed thirteen pigeons and two bantams. The killing of birds was nothing peculiar to this cat alone, therefore, the liability under the scienter rule did not arise. There was no liability even for cattle trespass because cat is no 'cattle' for the purpose of this rule

Ellis v Loftus Iron Co

Damages are recoverable not only for harm to the plaintiff's land and crops caused by trespass, but also for injury to his animals

1. D's horse kicked and bit the plaintiff's mare through the wire fence which divided their properties. This was considered cattle trespass as the horse's body crossed the boundary
2. Defendant was held liable without any proof of knowledge of the viscious nature of the horse or proof of negligence of the defendant

Cooper v Railway Executive

Damages are recoverable for trespass and resulting damages to the chattel

West v Reynolds Metal Co

1. It was held that where the defendant's land bordered on the plaintiff's on two sides, this was not sufficient to bring him within the protection of the section when his cattle escaped on to the plaintiff's land, since the defendant's land was not enclosed on all sides

What does West Reynolds Metal Co. say about the tort of trespass vs the tort of nuisance

They may be distinguished by comparing the interest invaded; an actionable invasion of a possessor's interest in the exclusive possession of land is a trespass; an actionable invasion of a possessor's interest in the use and enjoyment of his land is a nuisance.

Aziz v Singh

The right to sue for trespass arises from occupation of the land and only a person with in an interest in the land can sue

Tillet v Ward

An ox belonging to the defendant, while being lawfully driven to market through a street in the town of Stamford, escaped, without there being any negligence on the part of the defendant or the drover, into a shop of the plaintiff, an ironmonger, the doorway of which was open to the street, and there did the damage. Held, that the defendant was not liable in the absence of any evidence of negligence.

Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus

1. During a circus performance a dog antagonised the leading elephant, Bullu. Consequently some elephants stampeded into a side show where some dwarfs were injured and suffered shock.

McIntosh v McIntosh

it has been held in Jamaica that, in the case of an animal mansuetae naturae, there is no liability where, in causing harm, the animal was displaying a 'natural' as opposed to a 'mischievous' propensity

McKone v Wood

an occupier who took care of a vicious dog left on the premises by a previous tenant was held liable for injury caused by the animal.

North v Wood

the mere fact that an occupier has tolerated the presence of someone else's animal on his land does not fix him with responsibility for its mischief : for example, a father was not liable for an injury inflicted by a dog owned and fed by his 11-year-old daughter.

Knott v London

a school authority was not liable when a dog kept on school premises by the caretaker attacked and injured a cleaner.

Scarch v Burn

1. negligence is probably a good defence to show that the plaintiff, at the time he was injured by the animal, was trespassing on the defendant's land, unless the animal was kept with the deliberate intention of injuring, rather than of merely deterring, trespasser
2. A person cannot recover damages for an injury received from the bite of a dog placed inn the yard for the protection of the outhouses, unless he had a reasonable and justifiable cause for being in the place where the dog was
(In this case the plaintiff was unable to read)

Nurse v Haley

negligence is probably a good defence to show that the plaintiff, at the time he was injured by the animal, was trespassing on the defendant's land, unless the animal was kept with the deliberate intention of injuring, rather than of merely deterring, trespassers.

British Railways Board v Herrington

A six year old boy was electrocuted when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a fence however, part of the fence had been pushed down and the gap created had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence , but had failed to do anything about it. Under existing authority of Addie v Dumbreck no duty of care was owed to trespassers. However, the House of Lords departed from their previous decision and held that the defendant railway company did owe a duty of common humanity to trespassers.

Sylvester v Chapman

- Sylvester was mauled by a leopard, having gone behind the barrier to extinguish a cigarette. Held: Volenti will succeed if there were warning signs.

Rands v McNeil

the plaintiff was a zookeeper/wild animal trainer, the court held that he should expect dangers that come with the job

Fleeming v Orr

If the owner of a dog keeps him properly secured, but another person improperly lets him loose and urges him to mischief, the owner is not liable.

Baker v Snell

snell (D;s) dog bit baker (p). the dog was known for biting people (even D). p was a servant of D. P was in the kitchen with D's other servants. Jokingly, D said, 'I will bet the dog will not bite anyone', and then, 'Go it, Bob'. The dog then bit P. P was nonsuited on the ground that the conduct of the barman who had the dog in charge amounted to an assault by him.

Brown v Henry

the Jamaican Court of Appeal preferred the view of certain textbook writers that the defence of act of a stranger is available but qualified, and can succeed only if the evidence shows that the owner of the animal took all reasonable care to prevent third parties from meddling with it.

Draper v Hodder

1. Plaintiff was 3 years old and lived with his parents on an ungated property fifteen yards from the D's ( a jack russell terrier breeder) property which was also ungated
3. While P was playing he was attacked by 7 terriers who had escaped. The court noted that the dogs frequently visited the yard without exhibiting aggression
4. It was held that an action based on scienter could not be maintained as it was impossible to identify which dogs wee responsible for the injuries
5. It was held that foreseeability relies on whether harm could be occasioned, rather than whether the actual harm sustained could have been anticipated
6. It was held that the P breached his duty of care and not restraining the dogs

Wright v Callwood

there are, however, limits to the liability in negligence o has been stated that 'where no special circumstances exist, negligence cannot be established merely by proof that a defendant has failed to provide against the possibility that a tame animal of mild disposition will do some dangerous act contrary to its ordinary nature'. it seems, therefore, that the plaintiff will not succeed unless: a. there is a special risk of injury to others; and b. the particular kind of injury which occurred was foreseeable

Searle v Wallbank

an important exclusion from liability in negligence is the rule in Searle v Wallbank which is to the effect that the occupier of premises adjoining a highway is under no duty to users of the highway to prevent his domestic animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying onto the highway and causing accidents there.

Henry v Thomas

, at common law, there is no duty upon the owner of land to maintain a fence or other obstacle around the property to keep his animals.

Ellis v Johnstone

there are, however, two exceptions to this rule (the rule that owners are not required to fence their property) : a. exceptional circumstances may require fencing; for example, where a dog dashed on to the road so often that it became 'more like a missile than a dog'

Deen v Davis

if the defendant actually brings, leads or drives an animal on to the highway, he is under a duty to take reasonable care that it does not cause damage there (Deen v Davis) : what constitutes reasonable care is a question of fact in each case; for instance, greater care may need to be taken in an urban area than in the country

Coley v James

if the animal exhibits an unnatural tendency and causes damage thereby, the defendant will not be liable, since the damage will then be too remote