The criteria used to determine whether landowners have failed in their duty to ensure that animals are properly secured has been considered by the Appeal Court. The court has overturned a finding of negligence against the owner of horses that escaped and subsequently caused an accident.
The court held that a county court judge had erred in finding against the landowner on the basis that his property was generally scruffy.
The landowner had claimed that he had secured the horses on the evening before the accident but found that the fences had been cut during the night. However, the county court judge held that the landowner was liable for the accident.
Allowing a challenge to that decision, the Appeal Court has ruled that this was a completely inadequate basis upon which to reach such a finding. The court said that what was important was not the general condition of the gates and fences but the state of the gates and fences in the fields in question. The landowner could not have guarded against someone cutting the fence.
Hole v Ross-Skinner Court of Appeal (Mummery, Laws and Arden LJJ) 20 May 2003.
Christopher Russell (instructed by Porter Dodson, of Yeovil) appeared for the defendant; the claimant did not appear and was not represented.
References: PLS News 21/5/03
