LIABLITY FOR

ANIMALS
By Sakshi bisht
 LIABLITY FOR ANIMALS
The liability of the damage done by the animals can be studied under the
following heads
1. The Scienter rule
2. Cattle trespass
3. Ordinary Liability of Tort
 The Scienter Rule
The liability of defendant under this rule depends upon the knowledge of the
dangerous character of the animals which he knows or ought to be know to
be having a tendency to do harm, he will be held liable.
For this purpose of the rule the animals are divided into
1. Animals ferae natue i.e. animals dangerous by nature
2. Animals mansuetae nature i.e. animals harmless by nature
 Liability for keeping animals ‘ferae
naturae’
There is a conclusive and irrefutable presumption that the keeper of animals
ferae naturae knows of their dangerous nature if such keeps an animals at his
own peril and his liability will be strict.
The liability arises even without the proof of negligence.
CASE- BEHRENS VS BERTHAM MILLS CIRCUS LTD.
 Liability for keeping animals ‘mansuetae
naturae’
For making the defendant liable in respect of the damage done by a animal
belonging to class of harmless or domestic animals, to things have to be
proved:
• That the animals in question had a vicious propensity which is not
common to animals of that species; and
• That the defendant had the actual knowledge of the viciousness.
 Cattle Trespass
Apart from the Scienter rule, the owner of the cattle may also be liable if the
cattle trespassed on the land of the another person. The liability in such a
case is strict and the owner of the cattle is liable even if the vicious
propensity of the cattle and owner knowledge of the same is not proved.
There is also no necessity if proving negligence on the part of the defendant.
Cases ELLIS VS LOFTUS IRON CO.
THEYAR VS PURNELL
 Ordinary liability in Tort
The owners of the animals are liable for the common thought committed by animals this
liability of owners of animals is based on the principle of negligence when they fail to
keep control over their land it is everybody duty to see that they should keep their
animals in such a way so they should know they should not cause any harm to others and
if they violate their duty to not take due care and action can be brought against them such
cases are quite different from cattle trespass and the scientier rule cases.

Cases Stern vs. Prentice bros (1919)

Searle vs. Wallbank (1947)