Animal
Schoultz v Ball and others [2022] EWHC 2452 (KB), [2022] All ER (D) 13 (Oct)
The King’s Bench Division held that the first defendant owner of a horse that had collided with a taxi (in which the claimant had been a passenger) on the southbound carriageway of the A3, was not liable under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 (the Act) for the injuries the claimant had sustained in that collision. The court held that it could not find, as the claimant had asked it to find, that the likelihood of the damage to the claimant, or of its being severe, had been due to the horse’s characteristics, which were not normally found in horses, except at particular times or in particular circumstances. Rather, it had been due to the horse having been a large and heavy animal, standing on a dual carriageway where she should not have been standing. Accordingly, s 2(2)(b) of the Act was not made out and the claim was dismissed.
Company
BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
