Estacio V Honigsbaum [2017] EW Misc 29 (CC) (18 May 2017)

Estacio V Honigsbaum [2017] EW Misc 29 (CC) (18 May 2017)

The defendant is strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971 because the dog exhibited a characteristic (biting when alarmed or in confined space) known to the species and the keeper, and the claimant satisfied all three limbs of section 2(2).

Citation
[2017] EW Misc 29 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for claimant
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971, Dog Bite, Personal Injury
Tort Animal Law Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 Dog Bite 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971 for injuries caused by his dog
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances satisfy the requirements of section 2(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Animals Act 1971

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971 because the dog exhibited a characteristic (biting when alarmed or in confined space) known to the species and the keeper, and the claimant satisfied all three limbs of section 2(2).

Court Disposition

judgment for claimant

Orders

  • Claimant is entitled to general damages