Whippey v Jones

Whippey v Jones

The trial judge applied the wrong legal test for negligence by failing to require that injury be likely, not merely possible; on the facts, a reasonable dog handler would not have anticipated physical injury to another adult park user from the dog, so negligence was not established.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Whippey; Respondent: Andrew Michael Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Animals Act 1971, Personal Injury
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Animals Act 1971 Personal Injury

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Whippey

Appellant

Andrew Michael Jones

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in handling his dog, resulting in injury to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the correct legal test for negligence was applied by the trial judge

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied the wrong legal test for negligence by failing to require that injury be likely, not merely possible; on the facts, a reasonable dog handler would not have anticipated physical injury to another adult park user from the dog, so negligence was not established.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed
  • The finding of negligence against the appellant is overturned