Animals Act article by Blackhurst Budd's Neil Jones
If I am injured after an attack by or even a collision with someone's dog, can I sue for damages for my injuries?
As you might expect you are going to get a lawyer’s answer. It depends. Much of the essential law is contained in the Animals Act 1971. As well as the duty under the Animals Act a dog’s handler could be held responsible in negligence. There are therefore 2 duties side by side.
A distinction is drawn in the Act between domesticated animals and animals from a dangerous species. So if your crocodile eats the postman you can expect to be liable in damages for his injuries.
If however, your dog attacks the postman the situation is more complicated. If the dog is not restrained and the injury is likely to be caused by characteristics in that dog which are not normally found in dogs or the injury is likely to be severe because of that characteristic, and you are aware of that characteristic in your dog, then you will be liable to compensate the victim.
So if the dog has attacked postmen before and you leave it to roam freely in your garden when the postman tries to deliver the post, then you will be responsible for compensation when the dog attacks the postman a second time. You could also be held to be negligent. If you are the postman it is difficult to bring a case for damages because of the difficulty in proving an attack has happened before unless of course the Post Office has complained in writing or the Police have a record of the previous attack or you have some other evidence of the dog’s unusual characteristic. This is best illustrated by a recent case in 2009 called Whippey –v- Jones in the Court of Appeal.
Mr Whippey was an RSPCA Inspector who had rescued a 12 stone Great Dane called Hector and kept him as his own dog. He was exercising him in a Park in Leeds when along came Mr Jones who was out for a jog. Hector took a dislike to Mr Jones and rushed at him barking, knocking him over. Mr Jones broke his ankle and sued Hector’s owner Mr Whippey. He alleged Mr Whippey had been negligent in the way he handled Hector and also he alleged he had been in breach of the duty imposed by the Animals Act. The evidence was that Hector did not normally knock people over. He just barked at strangers from a few feet away. There was no evidence that Hector had an unusual characteristic or that he had a characteristic that might cause a severe injury. The claim failed under the Animals Act therefore but in the County Court Mr Whippey was found to be negligent. This was overruled in the Court of Appeal because he could not be negligent unless he could reasonably have anticipated that Hector would knock over a jogger and break his ankle. He had never done such a thing before and Mr Whippey could not have anticipated what happened. Therefore the claim against Mr Whippey failed in both negligence and under the Animals Act.
News