LIABILITY FOR

ANIMALS
Group 1
Ashley- Indiana Johnson Shaneil Brooks
Briantae Bell Mia Mohammed
McKayla Powell Shanice Henry
Dezerae Francis Zetania Nevers
Suetanya Manning Shane Lindo
Ethon Johnson
LIABILITY FOR
ANIMALS
• Introduction to Liability for Animals

• Liability for Dangerous Animals

• Liability for Dogs
• Liability for Cattle Trespass
• Liability for Negligence
 Introduction
Liability for animals can be viewed as the owner or keeper of an animal becoming liable under the general principles of tort law. The
law pertaining to liability for harm or injury caused by animals remained unclear by the middle of the 20th century. Depending on the
conditions under which each tort is constituted, an owner may be liable. There were more common law cases that imposed strict liability
for animal-related harm. It was understood that because of their unpredictable character, animals are kept by their owners at their own
risk. Whether the animals were wild or tamed determined if strict liability applied.
For domesticated animals, knowledge of the animal's propensity toward danger must be proven before liability may be imposed,
whereas for wild animals, the owner was considered to know that the animal was hazardous and would be liable without fault. I can be
seen in the case Curtis v Betts (1990) where the defendant is the owner of a bull mastiff that is reputed to react violently when protecting
its territory, when the dog was being loaded in the car, the plaintiff, an 11 year old boy that has known the dog since it was a puppy
cycled by and was attacked and bitten by the dog. Strict liability was applied to the owner. It was not required for the plaintiff to provide
any proof that the dog had any anomalous traits in situations where it was known the dog would respond violently.

Perhaps this is where the proverb "Every dog is allowed one bite" came from. It was envisaged that this area of law would undergo a
complete and comprehensive reform, with severe liability imposed for harm caused by all animals or culpability based on the principles
of negligence. The Animals Act of 1971 continued the distinction between culpability for dangerous and non-dangerous species along
with liability under numerous torts, indicating that the chance was not taken. The Animals Act of 1971's fundamental tenet is that
anyone who retains a dangerous animal is strictly liable for any harm the animal may cause. A person who keeps a domesticated animal
that is typically thought to be harmless will only be held responsible if the animal has given rise to concerns that it may be hazardous
 Ferae Naturae
LIABILITY FOR These are animals from the wild that usually are cold, vicious
or dangerous. Animals falling into this category are gorillas,
DANGEROUS tigers, lions, bears and elephants. Where an animal ferae
naturae cause’s harm, the owner is strictly liable to the harm,
ANIMALS the owner is strictly liable to the claimant. This would be so
whether or not the animal has behaved in that manner in the
Animals are classified into two groups when dealing past. Once damage is caused by these animals the owners
with the Scienter Action: would be strictly liable.
When we speak about liability in Ferae Naturae we can make
· Ferae Naturae
reference to the case Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus (1957).
· Mansuetae Naturae
LIABILITY FOR Mansuetae Naturae
These animals include domesticated species like horses, goats
DANGEROUS , sheep, donkeys, cow, and dogs. The owners of Mansuetae
Naturae is not strictly liable for damage done by these
ANIMALS animals unless the animal displays the following tendencies:
1. That animal has shown the inclination in the past to that
Animals are classified into two groups when dealing kind of harm.
with the Scienter Action: 2. It can be proven that the owner or keeper has knowledge of
such inclinations.
· Ferae Naturae
3. The tendency was vicious or at least , mischievous , and
· Mansuetae Naturae
not merely playful.
 Liability for Dogs
According to G. Kodilinye There are
several reasons why the law has treated the
dog as a special type of animal mansuete
naturae:
• The dog population is very high.
• Dogs are kept for a number of purposes (guard dog,
pets, hunters).
• They are notoriously energetic and difficult to keep
under restraint and are prone to stray.
• Dogs are not within the definition of 'cattle' at common
law and the defendant cannot be liable in cattle trespass
for damage caused by his dog's straying on to the
plaintiff land.
• The ordinary common law heads of liability were
insufficient to deal with the special case of the dog.
 The Dog Liability Act of Jamaica

The new Now,under The

amendments to the Dogs(Liability for
Attacks) Act of
Previously there 1877 Dogs (liability
2020,the owner can
for injuries) Act
were no criminal provide criminal be prosecuted once a
charges, only an liability, in addition dog physically
attacks a person, that
avenue to sue the to the civil remedy
whenever a dog results in injury or
dog owners. attack occurs. fear of being bitten.
results in injury. • Section 3 (2):” ... Where there is for injury done by the dog in any place, other than the

Key Takeaways in The more than one occupier of the

• And ‘injury’ means (a) injury to an individual, and includes death,
disease, or any impairment of an individual’s physical or mental
premises (or part thereof) referred to in Section 3 where the
dog is kept, or permitted to live or remain … .”
condition. premises concerned, being • Section 6: “Where a dog attacks an
Dogs(Liabilty for Attacks)
• Section 5 also includes injury to an animal.
• Section 3 (1): “The occupier of any premises let in separate individual in any place other than the
apartments or lodgings, the
Act 2020
premises where a dog is kept, or permitted premises (or part thereof) referred to
to live or remain, shall be presumed to be occupier of that particular part of in Section 3, where the dog is kept or
the owner of the dog.” the premises at which the dog was permitted to live or remain, the owner
kept, or permitted to live or of the dog commits an offence.”
remain at the time in question,
shall be presumed to be the owner
of the dog.”
Dog Liability Cases

• See other cases such as Draper v

Brown v Henry 1947
Anderson
• Wilson v Ledgister
v Silvera 1959 1955 Hodder 1972 and Ann-Marie
Searchwell v John Lenon
Defendant and Mrs. Lennon
Defendant
 appellant was a
trespasser, and if
so, whether the

Wilson v Silvera 1959 respondent could

rely on this as a
defence.
• In Wilson y Silvera 1959 One Christmas Day, the
• Whether the
appellant called at the respondent's house to leave. Brownappellant was
v Henry 1947
present for a friend who resided there as a paying guilty of
guest the respondent. The gate to the premises was contributory
closed but the front door of the house was open. negligence.
Having called out several times, the appellant
Held: The Law did not
entered, and, while she was standing on the steps create an absolute
leading to the front door, she heard a voice say, liability. It merely
"Come in' or 'Coming. Immediately, two dogs relieved a P from
belonging to the respondent dashed through the proof of scienter and
negligence.
open door and savagely attacked her, causing
Other defences, such
severe injuries. Three questions were to be as 'plaintiff a
determined: trespasser' and
contributory
negligence, could be
raised, as a common
 Liability for Cattle Trespass
The Animals Act 1971 makes an owner or person in possession of livestock ‘strictly liable’ for
any damage caused by their animals trespassing on land owned/occupied by another. A livestock owner will be liable for any
damage caused by their animal to the land or any property on the
land, eg, the cost of reinstating the garden damaged by the cow.
Cattle are classified as cows, sheep, bulls, horses, donkeys, goat pigs and poultry under the
common law. The owner of these animals would be liable if the animals were to wander off on
someone's property and cause damage to their property; The owner of the land can sue for cattle
trespass. If the cattle strays from the highway onto someone’s property and there is no negligence action, there may be no
liability on the owner to the cattle, however, if the cattle were to stray from your private property to the land of another then the
owner will be held liable. An example of cattle trespass is the case between East Cost Estates v Singh 1964. In the case of East
Cost Estates v Singh 1964, The cattle belonging to the defendant strayed onto
the plaintiff's land and damaged their ‘pangola grass’. The defendant alleged that he was driving
the 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 onto the plaintiff’s land. It was held
that the liability in the cattle trespass is strict, and the defendant was liable irrespective of any
intention or negligence on his part.
Liability for
Negligence
• The owner or keeper of an animal, like the
owner of any asset, may become liable under
general tort law principles. If, for example, a
person brings a dog onto the highway and fails
to exercise reasonable care in controlling the
dog, he may be liable in Negligence; similarly,
if a person keeps animals in such numbers
that they unreasonably interfere with his
neighbor's enjoyment of his property, the
owner of the animals may be liable in
Nuisance.
• Similarly, the owner will be held liable if the noise or stench emitted
by such animals interferes unreasonably with the peaceful
enjoyment of adjoining property. In trespass, the owner who orders
a dog to attack a person or drives a beast onto someone else's
property, may also be held legally responsible. If, for example, a
lawful entrant is injured by the occupier's dog, the occupier may be
held liable. Finally, within the principle expressed in Rylands v.
Fletcher, ( THE RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER. "The person
who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps
there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at
his peril, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.") , If
animals are gathered on property in such a way that they constitute a
non-natural user of the land, and if they are likely to cause damage
if they escape, the owner may be held liable for any injuries caused
by such an escape.
Q&A
Session
Thank you for
listening!