Who is liable????

C

cowgirl16

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 March 2013
Messages
497
Visit site
Hi Everyone,

Got a question for you -

If a horse/horses, kept at DIY livery on a farm, escape from their field due to inadequate/poorly maintained fencing, and said horse/horses do damage to property or person - who is liable? Is it the YO, or the horse's owner?
Think I already know the answer, but thought I'd run it by you lot first!
Thanks.
 
Strictly speaking it is the YO - but Good Luck getting them to pay. It would probably require a written contract saying that they are responsible for fencing.

What is likely to happen is that the injured party would claim on your insurance (horse or home if you were insane enough not to have PL on your horse) and your insurance company could, if they wished pursue your YOs insurance company. Depends on how much money is involved really.

THere are lots of ifs & buts when it comes to claiming...there's no easy answer because it depends so much on different rules and practices.
 
LJR said:
You see I would say that it is the owner of the horse that is liable because they have chosen to use a poorly fenced field.
Click to expand...

Well, yes maybe. It all goes back to contracts which can be verbal, implied or written. Usually at livery, there would be a verbal contract at least for turnout, water, stabling, storage and maybe electric. If a YO tells their liveries to use a certain field, it could be assumed by a livery that the field is safe and fenced and suitable for horses - now, we all know that sometimes that won't be true. But if a livery was to query or complain that they were worried about the fencing and they were told 'it was fine' or something similar IMO the YO would be liable for any PL claims. If the yard was one where traditionally liveries (implied contract) maintained the fencing in their own turnout areas ie fixing fences or supplementing with internal electric fencing there could be an argument that the livery is liable or at least shares liability with the YO.

We won't even talk about who's liable for a known fence buster or a horse that jumps to escape. That gets complicated because it comes down to who knew that the horse did this, how many times it had happened prior and for the YO, what had they done to mitigate the risk.

It all depends is really the answer but I'm aware that that's not very helpful!
 
No use asking us for a legal opinion (unless any of the respondents are lawyers). Consult Citizens Advice or your legal representative if you think there is an issue you feel is worth incurring a bill. CAB will sometimes write to your YO if they feel there is the matter warrants it.
 
If I was seeking to make a claim I would pursue the horses owner and leave their insurance to decide whether they had a claim against the YOer.
You assume risks in certain circumtances and I think this would be one .
 
Wasn't there a case a few years ago where some horses got loose and the owners (rather than YO) were found liable for the damage caused?
 
LJR said:
You see I would say that it is the owner of the horse that is liable because they have chosen to use a poorly fenced field.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with this but I don't know where it stands lawfully speaking sorry. I wouldn't graze my horses in poorly fenced paddocks so I'm afraid you have to take some of the responsibility here. This is why livery yards like this are operating, because, to put it bluntly, people like you are happy to keep your horses there! Sorry I know that seems harsh, but there is no point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted if you'll pardon the expression!
 
chocolategirl said:
Yes I agree with this but I don't know where it stands lawfully speaking sorry. I wouldn't graze my horses in poorly fenced paddocks so I'm afraid you have to take some of the responsibility here. This is why livery yards like this are operating, because, to put it bluntly, people like you are happy to keep your horses there! Sorry I know that seems harsh, but there is no point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted if you'll pardon the expression!
Click to expand...

Strictly under law it is the owner of the land they escaped from who is liable , that is the reason YOs should have adequate liability cover! You do not need contract or anything like that it is down to the land owner the same way that if somebody tresspasses onto your land and injures themselves you are likely to get sued!
 
Last edited:
Under s2.2 of the Animals Act 1971 the 'keeper' of the animal is liable so I suppose you would be arguing the definition of 'keeper'. You would also need to establish whether the fencing was sufficient to keep the animals contained in the field under 'normal' circumstance, which if the horses are escaping regularly it would not be. However that would then beg the questions would a reasonable horse owner keep their horse in field from which they accepted the horse could easily escape?
Have a look for the case of Mivaherdy v Henley if you are interested. Not sure whether there is any subsequent significant case law.
 
Hopefully both have public liability in surance and their insurance companies can fight it out. Anyone who doesn't nowadays is mad, IMO. (sorry that wasn't the question!).
 
LJR said:
You see I would say that it is the owner of the horse that is liable because they have chosen to use a poorly fenced field.
Click to expand...

This^^^ iv known a simalier thing happen and owner was liable as she was fully aware of the fencing but still put her horse out.
 
I don't know the answer to the specific question asked but when my horses got out of a field late at night - the gate had been opened by person(s) unknown - the landowner was the one who was sued and not me.
 
The confusion arises due to the difference between liability and indemnity.

Depending on livery contract etc. the owner would be liable but should be indemnified by the yard owner
 
I agree - I read the Animals Act as basically saying the buck stops with the owner.

In a case of straying and damage caused to a third party's property, the horse's owner is responsible, but I would imagine that you could counter claim against the YO if it was written into your contract that they were responsible for fence maintenance.

Simple solution - make sure you have some kind of third party insurance, then the insurance companies can argue about it between themselves and earn their money!
 
I'd say it was the owner

Regardless of whether YO says they are responsible for fencing, the buck generally stops with the owner as horse is your responsibility

For example, near where I live these people horses keep escaping onto the road. They refuse to sort the hanging and inadequate fencing because they believe the council should be responsible for it. However Should these horses cause an accident, the insurance companies will come after owner

After that, It is down to the owner to prove the negligence on the field owner
 
I know of a situation where horses escaped out of a field one ran into a police car and the police are taking the yo to court, I cant too much as this case is still going on but as far as I am aware no action was taken against the horse owner.
 
At my old yard the fencing was appalling so I put up my own electric fence on the inside of the YO's fence. One day another liveries horse broke down their fence, came through my field and demolished my personal fence. My pony then got out into the other horses field, through the fence at the top into the gap between YO's land and the nature reserve. This fence was also rotten so he eventually ended up loose in the nature reserve. First thing YO said was she wasn't liable for the fine for a horse being in the nature reserve or the cost of fixing the nature reserve or her fence. I argued that I had secured my area and it was in fact the YO's poor fencing and the other liveries horse that caused it.

Long and short of it was the nature reserve people were great. Didn't fine me and replaced the whole run of fencing at their cost. I do have PL insurance though if worst came to worst. I soon left!

So in answer to your question I would say if the YO knows the fence is poor but the livery turns out in it, it is the horse owners problem.
 
The correct answer is 'the owner of the horse'. This was demonstrated by a recent legal case (Mivaherdy v Henley ) where some horses escaped from a securely fenced field through no fault of the owner and collided with a motorist who was seriously injured. The judge made it quite clear that it was the owner of the horse that was held to be financially responsible. It was also stated that horse owners should have third party public liability insurance for each of their horses to no less than £10,000,00 pounds (Ten million pounds). It is essential that horse owners check that their insurance is to this level as most insurers do not insure to this level.
 
Last edited:
This may be of interest!

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/liability-livestock-trespass-nuisance-animals-act-1971.htm

I think this paragraph is pertinent to this question and I think suggests that the horse owner will not be liable

An owner, or person in possession, of livestock will not be liable for any damage if he can show that the animal would not have strayed onto the land in question had it not been for a breach by another land owner or occupier of a duty to fence land.

The case law you are all quoting was an injury claim because of an accident and is covered by a different section of the animals act.
 
But the point is that if a horse escapes and causes an injury then the owner is liable and it is therefore sensible to ensure that you are covered by a valid insurance policy to the correct level.
 
OWLIE185 said:
But the point is that if a horse escapes and causes an injury then the owner is liable and it is therefore sensible to ensure that you are covered by a valid insurance policy to the correct level.
Click to expand...

I was just answering what the OP asked to start with it wasnt a question of whether they should be insured. I just pointed out that under the original circumstances they are not strictly liable but the YO would be as it is their fencing that is at fault.YOs cannot hide behind get out clauses etc if they do not supply basic secure fencing .The question was in the title! of course we should all have the relevant insurance cover(BHS gold now covers up to 20,000,000) but that would not pay out in this case if the OP was not liable under law .Liability insurance will not pay for damage to somebody elses property unless it was actionable in law.
 
OWLIE185 said:
The correct answer is 'the owner of the horse'. This was demonstrated by a recent legal case (Mivaherdy v Henley ) where some horses escaped from a securely fenced field through no fault of the owner and collided with a motorist who was seriously injured. The judge made it quite clear that it was the owner of the horse that was held to be financially responsible. It was also stated that horse owners should have third party public liability insurance for each of their horses to no less than £10,000,00 pounds (Ten million pounds). It is essential that horse owners check that their insurance is to this level as most insurers do not insure to this level.
Click to expand...

Slightly different to the OPs scenario I think - nobody is arguing that damages shouldn't be paid.

In the case quoted, the HOs were found to liable despite the fact that they had done everything possible to keep their animals off the road ie they were not negligent although they were found to be liable for the damages. Previously that was a bit of a legal grey area. That case is the main reason that equine PL insurance premiums rose sharply immediately after the verdict.

As popsdosh says it comes down to who has the duty to fence the land - most people would say that if they pay for a service (livery) that any failure to provide that service properly ( fencing poor enough to allow horses to stray) is the responsibility of the service provider (YO). THere are enough exceptions and get outs that I personally wouldn't be happy to try and fight it out in court so I would also hand it over to my insurance company to resolve. Of course, there is the possibility that the ins co would decline to pay and advise the injured party to claim elsewhere. Either way, I guess you would be looking for a new PDQ so IMO if the fencing is bad I'd avoid the whole problem and move before an incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top