Duty of care to animals on your property that you don't own

[Meowy Catkin]

I think we had a recent thread that discussed this topic. It seems that you really DO have a duty of care, even if you don't own the animal, but it is on your property.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/paul-alton-neglect-horse-rspca-welfare-bacup-lancashire-594962

A Lancashire farmer has been fined after a horse was found “barely alive” on his property.

53-year-old Paul Alton of Bacup pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering at Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Magistrates’ Court on 2 September.

The court heard that Alton failed to seek veterinary treatment for the bay gelding, who had collapsed and was in “desperate need”.

“Mr Alton claimed he couldn’t get hold of the owner of the horse yet took no action to get a vet,” added inspector Booker.

“It was obvious on day one the horse needed help, how anybody could leave him for four days [after his health deteriorated] is beyond me.”

The court ordered Alton to pay £260.

 

[{123756}]

Now the owner needs to be tracked down and they should get a hefty fine too.

 

[Sukistokes2]

This is why I tried to get rid of my livery, her horse was rapidly becoming very thin and I found myself doing his water and feeding him out of my own pocket. I was worried my parents, whose land it was, would end up in court. They had no idea they could be held responsible for the condition of the animal. My Dad saw it as money towards new fencing. I did try and warn him but not being horsey he could not really see the problem. It was the lack of water and the poor thing being in until 3pm, on a Sunday that opened his eyes. Luckily the girl really lost interest in the end and the poor horse was sold. I've seen him out and about, happy and healthy.

 

[Goldenstar]

Now the owner needs to be tracked down and they should get a hefty fine too.

They certainly should and they need a ban .
Sadly they might get away with it .
This sort of thing were landowners don't take action were an animal is in serious need is exactly when the duty of care is designed to work .
It's not designed for micromanaging other people's care of their animals .

 

[poiuytrewq]

How sad. I can see how this kind of situation arises though. If someone dumped a horse in my field tbh I'd be pretty ********d. Obviously I'd not let it suffer but financially a big bill for an animal that wasnt mine would be a disaster.

The recent thread may have been me and my feral cat?! who I've just been out looking for again!

 

[Crackerz]

I was just reading this story on H&H, poor horse

 

[Antw23uk]

That reminds me the muzzles still off my liveries fat shitland!

 

[Casey76]

This is how I'm now bottle feeding 3 abandoned kittens - as if I don't have too many cats as it is!

 

[SuperTeifi]

Wow, just wow! I'm not sure how he would have got out of that one. £260 fine for not getting a vet or the cost of the vets bills if he did!

 

[Meowy Catkin]

The recent thread may have been me and my feral cat?! who I've just been out looking for again!

I *think* it was JillA who was talking about it. Sadly the name of the thread escapes my addled brain.

This sort of thing where landowners don't take action where an animal is in serious need is exactly when the duty of care is designed to work .
It's not designed for micromanaging other people's care of their animals .

I agree with this.


I wonder what will happen to the owner?

 

[Goldenstar]

I hope they end up in court and get banned .
The law says it's an offence not met an animals needs
The horse had colic it needed a vet
It had worms that's the owners fault .
It had lice that's the owners fault
The owner did not see it for four days yet the picture shows it down in a pen rather than a field so if that's the case I think it will be easy to bring a case against the owner .
I have been a witness were a life ban was given for a horse with severe lice so I would hope the owner will be charged .

 

[stormox]

What would have happened had the farmer (in OPs Post) had been landed with a massive vets bill for a horse somebody had dumped on his land? Who wouldv had to pay it if farmer couldnt?

 

[Dry Rot]

Surely it will depend whether the horse strayed or was abandoned on the land as opposed to whether the farmer was supplying grazing?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

If someone dumps an ill or injured animal on your land, surely you would call welfare services and not just ignore it?

 

[Goldenstar]

If someone dumps an ill or injured animal on your land, surely you would call welfare services and not just ignore it?

And the chances are they will tell you it's down to you to sort it .
You have to call the vet and get the horse PTS pronto providing the horses was suffering ( this one clearly was ) so if this horse was dumped you would pts and yes you would end up with that bill unless you could trace the owner .

 

[Kaylum]

Who found the horse 4 days later? I am not sure I understand? If it was on a livery yard then other liveries would have helped the horse but still it should be the owner who got the fine unless of course something had happened to them. Some person must have found the horse and reported him? Although I would have phoned the vet and put it on the owners account. If you phone the vet they will advise you if you explain the symptoms.

 

[ester]

That's interesting given the recent thread and yes there have certainly been cases of people taking welfare cases in/wanderers and welfare then not being interested.

£260 seems cheaper than a vet/disposal?

 

[Kaylum]

That's interesting given the recent thread and yes there have certainly been cases of people taking welfare cases in/wanderers and welfare then not being interested.

£260 seems cheaper than a vet/disposal?

Do you think.it is more to do with welfare don't have the resources and if someone else can do something then that saves them from having to.spend time and money?

 

[Goldenstar]

That's interesting given the recent thread and yes there have certainly been cases of people taking welfare cases in/wanderers and welfare then not being interested.

£260 seems cheaper than a vet/disposal?

Yes your right it is cheaper .
And as YOer if he had called the vet he could have recovered the cost from the owner at small claims court if necessary .
This horse from what I read was colicing and was pts on the fourth day that's terrible just terrible .
On stray horses I have seen the police putting horses into a random field to have the owner of field left holding the baby .
I kept my boundary gates firmly padlocked after that .

 

[ester]

Do you think.it is more to do with welfare don't have the resources and if someone else can do something then that saves them from having to.spend time and money?

by welfare the threads I remember were RSPCA, who iirc had previously said they would help/cover emergency vets fees then changed their mind and said on your land now your responsibility, somewhat taking advantage of someone just trying to do a good deed given that the RSPCA have limited housing options themselves. I would be surprised if all organisations were like that, the ones with less money probably not so bad!

I agree terrible GS, I guess recovering money depends on owner having it and finding them etc. I just thought £260 although a successful prosecution isn't likely to act as a wake up call/deterrent to other land owners.

 

[Goldenstar]

Who found the horse 4 days later? I am not sure I understand? If it was on a livery yard then other liveries would have helped the horse but still it should be the owner who got the fine unless of course something had happened to them. Some person must have found the horse and reported him? Although I would have phoned the vet and put it on the owners account. If you phone the vet they will advise you if you explain the symptoms.

I would speculate it was on this yard / farm .
Owner not coming ,horse colicing ,somebody then rang RSPCA and they then visited found the horse got a vet .
They will have a reason they went after the yard owner you can't tell from the details given .
Of course they may well be prosecuting the owner as well it might not have reached court yet .

 

[popsdosh]

Yes your right it is cheaper .
And as YOer if he had called the vet he could have recovered the cost from the owner at small claims court if necessary .
This horse from what I read was colicing and was pts on the fourth day that's terrible just terrible .
On stray horses I have seen the police putting horses into a random field to have the owner of field left holding the baby .
I kept my boundary gates firmly padlocked after that .

Yes they did that to us last year and after a few choice words with the duty officer they sent somebody to pick them up which was cheaper than them ending up in court paying for the keep and a potential charge for criminal damage that would have been embarrassing.
I am afraid people generally are not aware that any animal that is on your property wanted or not becomes your problem under duty of care nowadays . Luckily under the new laws on abandonment it is easy to recover your expenses if for example the horses are fly grazed however not so easy if an owner does not come forward as in many cases with old or in-firmed horses!

 

[popsdosh]

If someone dumps an ill or injured animal on your land, surely you would call welfare services and not just ignore it?

They dont need to do anything because they know the landowner legally is responsible for the welfare and they dont want the bill

 

[Goldenstar]

They dont need to do anything because they know the landowner legally is responsible for the welfare and they dont want the bill

Spot on .

 

[ester]

Did the RSPCA bring this prosecution? As they were involved I guess it is quite possible but the article doesn't say. I wonder if the situation re. prosecution would be different if someone were to say well I rang X, Y and Z and they wouldn't help,- if one of those contacted was the RSPCA what they would do then.

 

[ester]

seems he has form and is banned from keeping dogs as a result

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...including-22-PUPPIES-appalling-condition.html

One of the newspaper reports is a bit confusing as reads :
'Burnley Magistrates Court heard that on Thursday, January 21, Mr Alton had helped move the horse that lived on his field to a nearby barn after it collapsed.


Mr Alton agreed to have a vet to attend the sick animal.

The court heard that the RSPCA inspectors attended the farm on three days later after a call about concerns of an ill horse.'


It reads a bit like when he moved the horse on day 1 he agreed to get it veterinary attention, then didn't and the RSPCA came back 3 days later?
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...horse_with_worms_and_lice_in_abdomen/?ref=rss

 

[popsdosh]

Did the RSPCA bring this prosecution? As they were involved I guess it is quite possible but the article doesn't say. I wonder if the situation re. prosecution would be different if someone were to say well I rang X, Y and Z and they wouldn't help,- if one of those contacted was the RSPCA what they would do then.

The point you are missing is it does not matter who he spoke to the landowner is still legally responsible for the animals welfare if it belongs to them or not ,there is no defence to that.

 

[JillA]

The responsibility in the Animal Welfare Act is on the person in control of the animal.
Circumstances vary - in this case I would say the landowner took on that responsibility by failing to get the owner to act, then taking some action himself but failing to carry through to avoid suffering, and presumably the court felt the same. I haven't seen the judgement so I don't know, but I suspect that generally it won't set a precedent that a landowner can over-ride the owner if the owner is present and aware - the owner is the one acting unlawfully. In those circumstances the landowner should have contacted a welfare organisation regarding owners lack of action IMO.
This is a pretty extreme case due to the continued absence and lack of contact of the animals owner, so I doubt it can be regarded as a general principle of responsibility of the land owner.

 

[Goldenstar]

the fact the horse was riddled with lice and full of worms shows what sort of thing had been going on in its life long term .
Poor horse it's so unfair so many don't get the lives they deserve .

 

[Dry Rot]

The point you are missing is it does not matter who he spoke to the landowner is still legally responsible for the animals welfare if it belongs to them or not ,there is no defence to that.

So are you saying that the owner of, say, 5,000 acres of hill ground is responsible for every sheep that strays across the boundary?

I don't believe a landowner/occupier has a duty of care towards stray or abandoned animals on his property unless he assumes that responsibility.

He might, for example, assume that responsibility by bringing the animal into a stable or putting it into a different field and closing the gate or by giving food and water or medication. If my neighbour's sheep stray onto my land, it would be ridiculous to suggest that I am legally bound to treat them all for foot rot, for example, if a few happened to be limping and I would be doing nothing wrong if I left the gate open so they continued to stray off again. A different scenario again if I put my dog around them and drove them out onto the road.

The law is not black and white because the scenarios will differ. It is for the courts to sort out the muddle and this is going to be a very long thread indeed if we discuss all the possible permutations! The landowner took on the responsibility for the horse in the OP by attending to it -- and then neglecting it.