Sofia Schoultz v Vicki Ball & Ors.

Sofia Schoultz v Vicki Ball & Ors.

The claim failed because the court found, on the evidence, that Lowri was not frightened, panicked, or displaying any dangerous characteristic at the time of the accident. The horse was stationary or barely moving and calm when struck, and the likelihood and severity of the damage was due to her size and presence on the carriageway, not a characteristic not normally found in horses except at particular times or in particular circumstances. Therefore, section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 was not satisfied and strict liability did not arise.

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
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability for Animals, Animals Act 1971, Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accidents
Tort Law Statutory Liability Strict Liability for Animals Animals Act 1971 Personal Injury Road Traffic 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner of a horse (Lowri) is strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 for injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic collision with the horse.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim failed because the court found, on the evidence, that Lowri was not frightened, panicked, or displaying any dangerous characteristic at the time of the accident. The horse was stationary or barely moving and calm when struck, and the likelihood and severity of the damage was due to her size and presence on the carriageway, not a characteristic not normally found in horses except at particular times or in particular circumstances. Therefore, section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 was not satisfied and strict liability did not arise.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim against the first defendant is dismissed.