Change in law could benefit the horse world....

[Mr_Ed]

Okay, this one takes a little bit of reading, but please stick with it. It is important. A proposed change to the Animals Act, if implemented, could benefit all horse owners by a potential reduction in insurance premiums.

I'd like to hear your thoughts and comments on the proposal.

Onto the detail.......

The Animals Act 1971 covers owners' liability for damage done by animals. A House of Lords' judgment in 2003 (Mirvahedy v Henley - find out more ), concerning injury caused by spooked horses, overturned previous interpretations of the Act and confirmed that strict liability applies to the keeper of animals that cause harm. In effect, the owner of the animal is liable for damage caused regardless of any actions they may have taken to limit the risk of such damage. It has been suggested that the application of strict liability in these circumstances is out of line with other areas of the law where legal liability can be mitigated by the taking of reasonable precautions. The Country Land and Business Association and the British Horse Society have campaigned to amend the Act, and the most recent development in this campaign is the tabling of a Ten Minute Rule bill by Laurence Robertson MP on 12 July ( see more details ). The Bill has been tabled under his own initiative, and the proposal seeks an amendment to the Act to allow for 'a defence of reasonable care' where such damage occurs. The Bill is scheduled to have its second reading on 20 October.

Whether or not Mr Robertson's proposal is successful, the Government is aware of the importance that the horse industry places on this issue, and expects that efforts will continue to secure a change in the law. However, it has to be clear that any change in the law must not absolve the owners of horses or other animals from their responsibility to take every reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of damage and that full liability for such damage should still apply in any cases where negligence is proven.

So what do you think? Do you think that the introduction of a defence of reasonable care might be acceptable in principle? Can you see any problems with this proposal?

( You can also see the story that H&H ran on 12 July )

 

[Mithras]

Seems sensible; strict liability is a very harsh approach and might have been all very well in days when people understood the countryside and wouldn't dream of letting horses out of their field for the fun of it. The logic in having strict liability for animals is that, contrary to populist belief, animals cannot be responsible for themselves. (I mean if you think animals have rights then in law this is usually counter-balanced by equivalent responsibilities). Therefore the keeper is responsible for their acts even if the keeper has not been negligent. However a strictly applied defence of reasonable care, although it waters down the concept of strict liability, still preserves it.

 

[josephinebutter2]

Lets hope it goes through!

I've always thought it mad that if your horse strays onto someones land (no matter how responsibly they are enclosed), you are responsible for any injury's your horse sustains (quite rightly) and any associated damage, yet if someone trespasses onto your land and injurs themselves, you can be held liable! It's a complete contradiction.

Absolute madness!!!

Problem is many laws exist from a time when common sense prevailed and if you had a problem with your neighbour, you would generally sort it out yourselves, not go running to try and get every penny of compensation out of them!

Rant over.

 

[WishfulThinker]

I hope it goes through, but it will need to have guidelines in every area. I mean if you are hacking along, adn someone drives say 2ft away from your horse and your horse shies and kicks the car - whos fault is it? I mean you kept your horse right onto the verge, but did you take reasonable care to make sure your horse did not react? Well obviouslty you did, but they will have to decide stuff like how close is too close? What could be expected to scare even the most bomb proof horses? If your horse is scared and breaks out of his field, how do they prove the fence was not strong enough? How strong should it be? If some little b*****R goes into your field and yor horse goes to investigate them and they end up being hurt, how will they define reasonable care in keeping people out of the field? You tie your horse up using a quick release knot - as shown in the BHS manual - your on a yard that has no gate between the yard and the road and your horse releases himself and wanders in front of a car. You took reasonable care in tying your horse up using a known, tried and tested method but i would say you would still be liable.

It is going to be a very grey, very muddy area!

I remember years ago when a group of kids were throwing stones at the neighbours donkey when it grabbed one fo the kids by the elbow and fractured it. Technically the owner could have been in big trouble couldnt she?

They will need very experienced horse people to say exactly what is reasonable care, and what will need to be common sense!