Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
 Printable version
|
 E-mail this to a friend
|
Plans to give animal owners legal piece of mind
Horse owners could benefit from cheaper insurance premiums under plans to clarify owners' liability announced by Farming Minister Jane Kennedy today.
The proposals, published today for consultation, would amend the Animals Act 1971 to clarify owners' liability should their animals cause damage.
The law in its current form lacks clarity and means that animal keepers face the prospect of being held strictly liable for damage or injury regardless of any actions they may have taken to prevent an incident from occurring.
Ms Kennedy said:
"We aim to give animal owners peace of mind when giving their horses or other animals the space and the exercise they require.
"This small amendment means that, if they've taken reasonable precautions and their animal causes damage, the owner will no longer be held strictly liable.
"This is great news for all animal keepers, especially as it could even lead to lower insurance premiums - something which I know would be very welcome to many rural businesses."
The amendment would mean that all animal owners or keepers must continue to take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents occurring, and they would remain liable for any negligence on their part, but it would introduce new and clearer criteria for the application of strict, no fault, liability in cases where the accidents could not have been predicted.
Notes to Editors
1. The Animals Act 1971 covers owners' liability for damage done by animals, and section 2(2) deals with the application of strict liability to the owners of animals that cause damage in certain situations.
2. Strict liability is liability without fault, which means the keeper of the animal is liable for any damage caused regardless of any actions taken to limit the likelihood of it occurring.
3. The precise meaning of section 2(2(b) of the Act, which refers to strict liability applying where the characteristics that caused the damage are not normally found in animals of the species or not normally found except "at particular times or in particular circumstances", has been the subject of debate and disagreement since the Act came into force. This uncertainty was heightened by the House of Lords' judgement in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003], concerning injury caused by spooked horses, which effectively extended the range of circumstances where strict liability could apply.
4. Insurance premiums for many land-based and equestrian businesses rose significantly in the period following the Mirvahedy judgment in 2003 - it is estimated that public liability premiums for commercial riding establishments rose by 79% in 2003, 39% in 2004 and 34% in 2005. While evidence of a direct link between the Mirvahedy judgment and the premium increases is difficult to find, the Government believes that a clarification of the law could lead to reduced premiums, although this is a matter for insurance companies.
Public enquiries 08459 335577;
Press notices are available on
our website
http://www.defra.gov.uk
Defra's aim is sustainable development
To subscribe
or unsubscribe to Defra's mailing list go to:
http://nds.coi.gov.uk
Once on the NDS website see Sign up
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
Website http://www.defra.gov.uk
