Any lawyers on here please?

[JillA]

Can we ask for your considered opinion please?
Ongoing discussion about the LEGAL duty of a livery yard owner towards the animals on their property (as opposed to their clients). As I see it the welfare legislation does not impose a duty on the YOs, any more than on any member of the public - do you know of any case law where the interpretation has imposed such a duty? And if so, where do you draw the line between livery owner and land owner if the land is tenanted?
This does not relate to abandoned animals, as in owners are not contactable.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I'm not a lawyer - but would recommend the BHS writings on the subject. It depends largely on the livery yard agreement with the owner. If a horse is on full livery then the yard owner is taking money for providing the care the owner wants the horse to have. DIY livery - a different matter.

 

[AmyMay]

In all types of Livery, the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the horse whilst in
his charge, temporarily or otherwise, shall rest with the Proprietor of the Livery Yard.

This is from the BHS draft livery agreement.

Specific legislation does exist, and has been quoted on the forum before - I'll try and find it.

 

[JillA]

That's livery as opposed to DIY. Makes sense because the owner contracts with the livery provider to take care of their horse. But what about when YO simply provides the facilities?

 

[EmmasMummy]

There is the Occupiers Liability Act...would that not in a way count?

"Occupiers' liability is a field of tort law, codified in statute, which concerns the duty of care owed by those who occupy real property, through ownership or lease, to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises."

And this is on the Horse Scolisitors website:


"£5,500 compensation for client injured on DIY yard
We were instructed to claim damages in connection with an accident that occurred at a DIY livery yard on 13 November 2013.

At the time of the accident our client stabled her horses at the yard. Our client was leading her horse across the yard, followed by her mum who was leading another horse, when suddenly both horses and our client fell. Our client sustained injury to her elbow and she chipped a tooth.

A different horse had fallen in the same spot just 2 days before and the yard owner was aware that there was a problem with the guttering which had resulted in a build-up of moss and algae over spilling on to the yard area. We argued that owner of the yard had failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of our client and her property whilst on his property. It was reasonably foreseeable that an accident was going to occur. By following good practice, simple steps could have been taken to avoid the incident. These include but were not limited to repairing the guttering, unblocking the guttering or placing grit on the area of the yard affected.

Our client was a lawful visitor to the property under The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and as such she was owed a duty of care. The duty was breached when she was exposed to a foreseeable risk of injury. In addition to the breach of statutory duty it was also alleged that it was negligent to allow the yard to become a slip hazard.

Liability was denied and court proceedings were issued. The matter settled out of court, in the sum of £5,500, 1 month prior to the hearing.

."

 

[JillA]

Thanks EM. That's clients though, as opposed to their animals?

 

[EmmasMummy]

Thanks EM. That's clients though, as opposed to their animals?

you could argue a horse is classed as goods, as it is under the sale of goods act they are. The act covers persons and their goods.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/sale-of-a-horse/

"What is the law that governs the sale of a horse?

Horses are treated, from a legal point of view, as being goods and, therefore, the law relating to the sale of goods applies to them."

"Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
1957 CHAPTER 31 5 and 6 Eliz 2
An Act to amend the law of England and Wales as to the liability of occupiers and others
for injury or damage resulting to persons or goods lawfully on any land or other property
from dangers due to the state of the property or to things done or omitted to be done
there, to make provision as to the operation in relation to the Crown of laws made by
the Parliament of Northern Ireland for similar purposes or otherwise amending the law
of tort, and for purposes connected therewith"

 

[be positive]

Can we ask for your considered opinion please?
Ongoing discussion about the LEGAL duty of a livery yard owner towards the animals on their property (as opposed to their clients). As I see it the welfare legislation does not impose a duty on the YOs, any more than on any member of the public - do you know of any case law where the interpretation has imposed such a duty? And if so, where do you draw the line between livery owner and land owner if the land is tenanted?
This does not relate to abandoned animals, as in owners are not contactable.

I suspect it has never been tested in court, it is unlikely to be as the first person responsible is the owner and it is not really in "our" interests to spend thousands on pursuing this type of case when there are more important things for the CPS and our police to be dealing with.
Technically a DIY livery yard owner may be ultimately responsible for any animal that resides on the property but as long as the owner is contactable then they will be the ones chased by the welfare agencies involved, morally I think the YO has a duty of care to ensure every horse has a decent standard of care but until a test case gets presented we will all have to speculate where that responsibility starts and ends, one to look out for in the future.

The nearest is probably the case where the YO got away with shooting the livery over an unpaid bill, it may seem unrelated but shows that the YO can get away with taking over responsibility if there is "reason to do so" however tenuous the reason may seem, the reverse should be much the same, if the horse is a welfare issue the YO can and should step in .

 

[FinkleyAlex]

I suspect it has never been tested in court, it is unlikely to be as the first person responsible is the owner and it is not really in "our" interests to spend thousands on pursuing this type of case when there are more important things for the CPS and our police to be dealing with.
Technically a DIY livery yard owner may be ultimately responsible for any animal that resides on the property but as long as the owner is contactable then they will be the ones chased by the welfare agencies involved, morally I think the YO has a duty of care to ensure every horse has a decent standard of care but until a test case gets presented we will all have to speculate where that responsibility starts and ends, one to look out for in the future.

The nearest is probably the case where the YO got away with shooting the livery over an unpaid bill, it may seem unrelated but shows that the YO can get away with taking over responsibility if there is "reason to do so" however tenuous the reason may seem, the reverse should be much the same, if the horse is a welfare issue the YO can and should step in .

CPS/police wouldn't deal with OLA cases - it falls under civil law. To the OP, I would look to s 9 of the animal welfare act for a YO's statutory duty of care to the animal (which is arguably a far weaker argument in the case of DIY livery). Otherwise, under tort law there could be actions under negligence (providing the criteria is met - again a duty of care is harder to prove for DIY), or depending on the livery contract there could be a breach of contract claim.

For the land owner question - Im not sure I understand the situation in enough to comment, however surely this is what insurance is for (assuming this is a commercial arrangement)?

 

[AmyMay]

That's livery as opposed to DIY. Makes sense because the owner contracts with the livery provider to take care of their horse. But what about when YO simply provides the facilities?

DIY is still livery.

 

[YorksG]

DIY is still livery.

Where would that leave a landowner who rents out land and stables to one individual, with no involvement, so the person paying rent sorts out all maintenance etc. The landowner may not even be in the country.

 

[JillA]

DIY is still livery.

Livery is defined as "the care, feeding and stabling of horses for pay". DIY, regardless of the general term it is known by, is a licence, to use land and property, with others. If alone it is a tenancy. In neither case can the land owner be responsible for anything more than ensuring the land and buildings are suitable and free from danger, such as old machinery.

In the 2006 Animal Welfare Act S3 states that the person who owns the animal (or in the case of under 16 yrs of age, the person responsible for that minor) is responsible for the welfare of the animal. S3 simply defines what constitutes welfare requirement.

If anyone can find a source where responsibility for welfare is devolved to the owner of the land please post it - otherwise I stand by my original statement that except where livery is provided (as defined) YOs are not responsible for the welfare of animals on their land, and have no such duty of care.

If you want to impose that duty on a landowner, firstly you have to change the law. Then you have to accept that either prices will rise significantly to reflect the additional responsibility or YOs will give up as not being viable businesses.

 

[Shay]

A forum is not the best place to seek legal advice. I am a lawyer - I could not provide substantive response to the question as framed without better instruction as to the circumstances. This is not a general question (or at least it does not seem to be) and as such advice must comply with the requirements for professional indemnity. I can conceive of circumstances where a YO might be held responsible; and of ways to bypass any responsibility. It depends on the circumstances.

OP - please contact a Solicitor with suitable equine experience. Several advertise in H&H and no - I'm not one of them or the BHS legal helpline. If you carry insurance you may also find you have legal expenses cover through that which may, depending on the policy, include obtaining advice.

 

[be positive]

I think the OP is asking in general terms, possibly relating to the recent welfare case of several horses neglected on a DIY yard, as I said it has probably never been tested as there are so many variables, the YO would be further down the chain of responsibility and it would require a lot of resources to persue.

 

[ycbm]

This is from the BHS draft livery agreement. '

' In all types of Livery, the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the horse whilst in
his charge, temporarily or otherwise, shall rest with the Proprietor of the Livery Yard. '

Specific legislation does exist, and has been quoted on the forum before - I'll try and find it.

That's not the law though, is it? It's a term in a contract to allow the yard owner to take control of the welfare of the horse, specifically while in his charge. A DIY livery is not in his charge unless he is being paid to do something with it at the time.

 

[DD]

sort of related. I've heard of a case which involved a horse whch was sold and the buyers wanted to return it.
Horse placed for sale, potential buyers view horse, decide to buy do not have a vetting even though the seller stated that it was a good idea to have this done. Horse paid for in full and removed to new owners premises.
A few weeks later the buyers try to return horse and get money back. They had decided to call a vet and it was discovered that the horse had a heart murmur.
Vendor tells then she's not having the horse back.
Next news is the yard owner receives a solicitors letter asking for the full price of the horse to be paid to the purchaser, as being the YO she was somehow responsible!
BTW she didn't pay up and nothing came of it, but I've never heard of anything like this before.

 

[ycbm]

The nearest is probably the case where the YO got away with shooting the livery over an unpaid bill, it may seem unrelated but shows that the YO can get away with taking over responsibility if there is "reason to do so" however tenuous the reason may seem, the reverse should be much the same, if the horse is a welfare issue the YO can and should step in .

He was prosecuted. If I remember rightly the charge was criminal damage (of someone's property, a horse). The case collapsed because the main witness, the loaner of the horse who had failed to pay her bill or visit the horse wouldn't testify.

 

[Dry Rot]

A forum is not the best place to seek legal advice. I am a lawyer - I could not provide substantive response to the question as framed without better instruction as to the circumstances. This is not a general question (or at least it does not seem to be) and as such advice must comply with the requirements for professional indemnity. I can conceive of circumstances where a YO might be held responsible; and of ways to bypass any responsibility. It depends on the circumstances.

OP - please contact a Solicitor with suitable equine experience. Several advertise in H&H and no - I'm not one of them or the BHS legal helpline. If you carry insurance you may also find you have legal expenses cover through that which may, depending on the policy, include obtaining advice.

If you are a lawyer, I suppose you realise that we now all hate you.

But you can't be a proper lawyer as you are using commas and full stops and a proper one wouldn't! So there.

In a nutshell, the person responsible for an animal is the one who has taken control of it. I think it's the Animals Act but can't be bothered to look it up. Stray horse in field with gate open, landowner has no responsibiliy. Landowner closes gate, landowner is now responsbible for it's welfare. Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that or lawyers would be poor like the rest of us.

 

[be positive]

He was prosecuted. If I remember rightly the charge was criminal damage (of someone's property, a horse). The case collapsed because the main witness, the loaner of the horse who had failed to pay her bill or visit the horse wouldn't testify.

He was prosecuted, my point being that he took control of the situation and did what he wanted with the horse even though it was a DIY livery, so the reverse could apply that if a DIY was not taking care of the horse the YO could be considered to be "responsible" for it, which is what I think the OP is trying to clarify.

I think ultimately it comes down to whether or not there is a written contract and how the contract is worded, the GG Centre had a clear contract that they could dispose of any horse if the bills were not paid, they were rather quick in making an example of their rules in that case.

 

[JillA]

A forum is not the best place to seek legal advice. I am a lawyer - I could not provide substantive response to the question as framed without better instruction as to the circumstances. This is not a general question (or at least it does not seem to be) and as such advice must comply with the requirements for professional indemnity. I can conceive of circumstances where a YO might be held responsible; and of ways to bypass any responsibility. It depends on the circumstances.

OP - please contact a Solicitor with suitable equine experience. Several advertise in H&H and no - I'm not one of them or the BHS legal helpline. If you carry insurance you may also find you have legal expenses cover through that which may, depending on the policy, include obtaining advice.

Thank you but it IS a general question. From time to time posters on here refer to the YO's duty of care as to the welfare of the horse on their premises. I am seeking to establish whether there is any legal basis for that situation because I don't think there is, unless the YO is contracted to care for the horse. Any legal basis means either legislation or case law interpreting that legislation, and I haven't found anything so far.

 

[fornema]

There should be a suitable contract in place which explicitly states the duties of owner of horse and land/livery owner i.e. a lease/rental agreement, if there is no contract you really need specialist advice from a lawyer as there is a lot of blurred lines as to what the a normal duty of care of a reasonable person in that situation should be for both parties and if there are is anything that is implied as a duty.

I have made sure with the land i rent that extensive contractual terms are put in place to ensure that I am covered and equally we know the owner/land managers obligations.

The cases that people have people have brought up of the sale of an animal fall under an entirely different set of laws and I would say are quite irrelevant.