You arrived at this page by selecting:San Francisco Tiger (YEP 17/01/08)
On Christmas Day a tiger escaped from San Francisco's Zoo and proceeded to kill one person and maul a further two before it was eventually shot.
If you watched the news bulletins you will remember the incident well but as is often the case we lawyers tend to watch these things with thoughts of the legalities of the situation if something like this happened in England?
Given the plethora of zoos and the like and the tendency for keeping exotic animals as pets parliament has applied its mind to this very matter on a number of occasions.
The early 70's saw the passing of the Animals Act in 1971 and this remains the first port of call for analysing any such situation today. Normally if something unfortunate befalls you and you end up being injured you have to prove that somebody else was at fault if you're going to succeed in getting any compensation. There are exceptions to the rule, and the above tiger, certainly would make such an exception.
Following debate Parliament decided that if an animal belonged to a dangerous species then liability for injury caused would be strict and legislated accordingly. The definition of “Dangerous Species” encompasses those animals not normally commonly domesticated in this country and capable of severe damage unless restrained. This would certainly apply to our above tiger. This means that despite an absence of negligence and even knowledge on the part of the keeper they would be liable for any injuries caused.
This reflects the position at common law which tends to say that if you decide to have something incredibly dangerous on your premises or land, such as a dangerous animal or say a pile of dynamite, then you are responsible for anything ill that befalls anybody as a result. It doesn't really matter whether you were careless with it or not.
Of course these sort of things are not always clear cut. In between the extremes such as the tiger incident there is always plenty of room for debate.
A recent case of ours of a novice rider enjoying a pony trek highlighted this. Most horses might nibble your fingers while eating an apple out of your hand if you're not careful, but by and large they don't go round attacking people. They are however powerful and large animals, treat them poorly or spook them and they can be dangerous.
This particular horse threw its rider and caused a significant personal injury. In the end the trek leaders were held liable despite an absence of negligence. This was due to a further rather “obtuse” section of the Animals Act that Lord Denning predicted would “give rise to several difficulties in the future”. He, not surprisingly, has been proved right.
The key things however would appear to be “what animal” in “what circumstances”. Each case depends on its own facts so if you are in the business of keeping such animals beware of the potential consequences. By the way it has just been made illegal to keep an elephant as a pet (just in case).
- Look out for my column which will be weekly from now on.
- My colleagues and I regularly provide FREE speakers to local non-profit club and group meetings. Any donations received are automatically given to charity.
- You can read all past columns on our website www.LawOffice.co.uk
- If you have a legal query that you think might be interesting to other readers too please send it to me at Horsforth Law Office, New Road Side, Horsforth, LS18 4QE. T: 0113 258 6888 or email john.wilson@LawOffice.co.uk