Clark v Bowlt

Clark v Bowlt

The requirements of section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Animals Act 1971 were not satisfied because the damage was not of a kind which the horse, unless restrained, was likely to cause, and the relevant characteristics (weight and occasional unpredictability) were normal for horses and not particular to this animal at a particular time or in particular circumstances. Therefore, strict liability did not arise.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Richard James Clark; Respondent: Keren Lesley Bowlt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Animals Act 1971, Strict Liability, Negligence, Liability for Animals
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Animals Act 1971 Strict Liability Negligence Liability for Animals

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard James Clark

Appellant/defendant

Keren Lesley Bowlt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the keeper of a horse is strictly liable under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 for damage caused by the horse moving into the road and colliding with a car
  2. 2 Whether the characteristics leading to the damage were 'not normally found' in horses except at particular times or in particular circumstances as required by section 2(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements of section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Animals Act 1971 were not satisfied because the damage was not of a kind which the horse, unless restrained, was likely to cause, and the relevant characteristics (weight and occasional unpredictability) were normal for horses and not particular to this animal at a particular time or in particular circumstances. Therefore, strict liability did not arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim and counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Claim dismissed