Flack v Hudson [2000] EWCA Civ 360 (06 November 2000)

Flack v Hudson [2000] EWCA Civ 360 (06 November 2000)

A bailee or keeper of an animal is not barred by the Animals Act 1971 from suing the owner or another keeper for strict liability, provided the owner had knowledge of the animal's abnormal characteristic and the claimant did not voluntarily accept the specific risk.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 360
Parties
Claimant: Leslie Keith Flack; First Defendant/appellant: Salli Jane Hudson; Second Defendant: Paul S Hudson; Third Defendant: Stephen John Custance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs in the appeal; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971, Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Bailment
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 Fatal Accidents Act 1976 Volenti Non Fit Injuria Bailment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Keith Flack

Claimant

Salli Jane Hudson

First Defendant/appellant

Paul S Hudson

Second Defendant

Stephen John Custance

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bailee/keeper of an animal can sue the owner/another keeper under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 for strict liability
  2. 2 Whether the horse's behaviour constituted an abnormal characteristic under section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971
  3. 3 Whether the deceased voluntarily accepted the risk under section 5(2) of the Animals Act 1971

Ratio Decidendi

A bailee or keeper of an animal is not barred by the Animals Act 1971 from suing the owner or another keeper for strict liability, provided the owner had knowledge of the animal's abnormal characteristic and the claimant did not voluntarily accept the specific risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs in the appeal; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in the sum of £175,000 stands.
  • Costs in the appeal as ordered.