Schoultz v Ball & Ors [2022] EWHC 2452 (KB) (03 October 2022)

Schoultz v Ball & Ors [2022] EWHC 2452 (KB) (03 October 2022)

Strict liability under s2(2) Animals Act 1971 was not established because, on the evidence, it was not proven that the horse (Lowri) was in a state of panic or severe fright at the time of the accident, nor that the accident was caused by such a characteristic. The horses were likely wandering rather than exhibiting dangerous behaviour due to panic or fright. Therefore, the statutory requirements for strict liability were not satisfied.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2452 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Sofia Schoultz; First Defendant: Vicki Ball; Second Defendant: Rosemary Gibson Miller (T/A Surrey Grazing); Third Defendant: Ponniah Sabesan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Animals Act 1971 Liability / High Court Trial on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971 S2(2), Personal Injury, Dangerous Animals, Equine Behaviour, Highway Accidents
Tort Law Statutory Liability Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 S2(2) Personal Injury Dangerous Animals Equine Behaviour Highway Accidents

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofia Schoultz

Claimant

Vicki Ball

First Defendant

Rosemary Gibson Miller (T/A Surrey Grazing)

Second Defendant

Ponniah Sabesan

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Animals Act 1971 Liability / High Court Trial on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the owner of a horse (not a dangerous species) strictly liable under s2(2) Animals Act 1971 for injuries caused when the horse escaped and collided with a vehicle on a highway?
  2. 2 Were the statutory requirements of s2(2)(a), (b), and (c) satisfied on the facts?

Ratio Decidendi

Strict liability under s2(2) Animals Act 1971 was not established because, on the evidence, it was not proven that the horse (Lowri) was in a state of panic or severe fright at the time of the accident, nor that the accident was caused by such a characteristic. The horses were likely wandering rather than exhibiting dangerous behaviour due to panic or fright. Therefore, the statutory requirements for strict liability were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against the First Defendant dismissed
  • No order as to costs specified in the provided text