Hole v Ross-Skinner

Hole v Ross-Skinner

There was no evidence that the defendant failed in his duty of care or that any act or omission by him caused the horses' escape and the accident. The escape resulted from third-party interference (cutting of the fence and opening of the gate), for which the defendant was not responsible. General scruffiness of fences and gates was insufficient to establish negligence or causation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Brian Hole; Defendant/appellant: Harry John Crawley Ross-Skinner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Liability
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971, Duty of Care, Causation
Tort Law Negligence Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 Duty of Care Causation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Hole

Claimant/respondent

Harry John Crawley Ross-Skinner

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in allowing horses to escape onto the highway causing injury to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the state of fences and gates constituted a breach of duty of care
  3. 3 Whether causation was established between any alleged negligence and the accident

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the defendant failed in his duty of care or that any act or omission by him caused the horses' escape and the accident. The escape resulted from third-party interference (cutting of the fence and opening of the gate), for which the defendant was not responsible. General scruffiness of fences and gates was insufficient to establish negligence or causation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment on common law negligence set aside
  • No order for costs