Latest news with #AnimalsAct1971
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
‘My neighbour's dog savaged my cat, now he won't pay the £3,000 vet bill'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Hello Gary, I'm asking this question on behalf of my sister. My sister and family live on a pleasant, quiet estate. A few weeks ago, one of her cats was sleeping peacefully in the front garden, when a man who lives elsewhere on the estate walked by with his Rhodesian Ridgeback dog on a lead. The dog saw the cat, broke free from the man and attacked the cat. This was caught on my sister's front door cam. The man managed to get his dog off the cat and rang the bell to apologise. He then walked off. Long and short, the cat suffered life-threatening injuries. It is now on the mend but will have a lifelong injury to one leg. The overall vet bill is about £3,000 and while my sister has the cat insured, it will not cover this amount. The thing that has angered my sister, and indeed other neighbours who know the man, is that he's offered no financial support. My brother-in-law has twice been round to his house to discuss the issue, but the man is not interested. He simply told my brother-in-law that his dog insurance does not cover injury caused to cats. He's clearly not going to do the right thing. Does my sister have any legal recourse to force the man to contribute towards the vet fees? These are fees that were incurred by his dog being out of control and causing great harm to a much-loved family member. All the best, John by email Dear John, I am very sorry about this terrible incident. As you say great harm has been done in what must be distressing circumstances for your sister and her family. My view as a lawyer is that the owner of the dog has legal responsibility for what has happened and arising from that responsibility can be forced to account for his actions. In legal terms pets, including dogs, are chattels, which means they are an item of property like a car or a piece of furniture capable of being owned by an individual. Hence, ownership of a dog is sometimes in dispute in situations like a divorce. In this case, while it is the action of the dog which caused the injury, the responsibility is with the dog owner. It is the Animals Act 1971 which addresses liability for animal-related incidents and makes clear a 'keeper' of an animal, by definition a dog owner, is liable for the actions of a dog. So, as a matter of preliminary evidence you should first establish the owner in this case is the owner of the miscreant dog. I would say the fact he has pet insurance for his dog pins him down on ownership. Under the Animals Act, keepers of animals can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog in certain circumstances. Even if the dog has not shown previous aggression or the owner did not intend harm. In this case the relevant facts and basis of the claim are: The dog caused injury to your sister's cat The dog was not under control, as it broke free from the lead and – The attack was reasonably foreseeable given the involvement of larger, powerful breeds like Rhodesian Ridgebacks, which are known for sometimes aggressive behaviour to smaller animals. I emphasise here that dogs behave instinctively, and it is the owners who should know that and manage their behaviour. In this case, the fact this occurred in a front garden where the cat had a right to be, and the dog was out of control strengthens your sister's potential claim. As well as liability under statute as per the Animals Act, your sister could bring a claim for negligence on the basis the dog owner failed to maintain control of the dog and/or damage to property as her cat is also her chattel so the dog has caused damage to her personal property. All of which means there is a legal basis for a monetary claim against the dog owner. The next issue is to value the claim. This will mean calculating all of the financial loss which has occurred, which in the main will be the vet's bill of £3,000. These losses should be set out with supporting evidence. An initial 'letter of claim' setting out the legal basis of the dog owner's liability (as above) and the financial losses claimed should be sent to the dog owner and he should be given a deadline to reply and pay up. Tell him if he does not pay by the deadline you will issue a claim under the 'small claims track' which can be done online in England and Wales for all monetary claims of a value up to £10,000. Here's the link. If your sister recovers her losses from the dog owner, she will of course have to repay any relevant part of her own insurance claim. Ask a Lawyer should not be taken as formal legal advice, but rather as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Independent
03-03-2025
- The Independent
Woman loses £400k injury claim after being filmed walking ‘strong' husky
A doggy daycare boss who sued for over £400,000 after injuring her arm in a fall from a horse has lost her case after being videoed holding a "big, strong" husky tugging at the lead and playing sports. Hazel Boyd was guilty of "dishonest exaggeration" of the problems her injured arm caused her, a judge has found, after secretly-shot film showed her taking part in football and rugby games, as well as walking muscular dogs with her bad arm. Ms Boyd was riding out a three-year-old thoroughbred named "Foxy" whilst working as a stable hand for Welsh racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes in June 2020 when she said the horse "spooked" and threw her to the ground. She sued the trainer, of Ty'r Heol Farm, Pantybrad, Tonyrefail, Porth, claiming the horse was a "dangerous" animal and that the accident left her with a disabled right arm after a bad break and dislocation of the elbow. She said her riding career was ruined as a result of the fall and claimed up to £368,000 in lost earnings, as well as other damages, despite having since set up a "doggy daycare" business. But she faced accusations of "fundamental dishonesty" in relation to her damages bid, with the racehorse trainer claiming social media posts and surveillance footage proved that she exaggerated her disability and was in fact "a rugby-playing, football-playing goalkeeper, who is quite able". Dismissing her claim at London's High Court today, Mr Justice Cotter said Ms Boyd had failed in her claim under the Animals Act 1971 because she had not provided convincing evidence that the horse she was riding "jinked" because it was scared. He went on to find that she had "deliberately overplayed her symptoms and level of disability" during appointments with medical experts, but added that her actions were not so bad as to qualify as "fundamental dishonesty" which would have seen her handed the massive court bill for the case. Giving evidence at London's High Court, Ms Boyd had denied that being videoed taking a husky for a walk whilst holding the "large" animal's lead with her "bad" arm proved she was exaggerating the impact of her injuries. Georgina Crawford, for Mrs Hughes, told Mr Justice Cotter that secretly-shot surveillance footage shows her on various days walking dogs and going to football and rugby training. The barrister focused in on a piece of the footage which showed Ms Boyd walking three dogs for 90 minutes, initially her own two smaller dogs before bringing a husky into the mix. 'A husky is a large are walking a big, strong dog on a lead," the barrister put to her in the witness box. She replied: 'I can't pick a heavy bag of shopping up with that hand. That dog isn't pulling me." Ms Boyd - formerly a member of the Llantwit Pink Rhinos women's rugby team - was also confronted with footage showing her taking part in training. She told the court that she had returned to training in late 2020, having been told her injury would improve more if she was fitter. 'It shows me training, not playing rugby. There's a difference. Training is non-contact, it's tag," she said. 'You can see me running up and jumping on someone, I'm not tackling them....I haven't misled anyone here." The judge, ruling on the issue, said: "The claimant deliberately overplayed her symptoms and level of disability." But he went on: "I have concluded that the effect of the dishonest exaggeration was not sufficiently significant to mean that it went to the root or heart of the claim. "It was dishonest embellishment in an attempt to underpin an essentially honest claim. "She voluntarily declared that she tried to retrain as an HGV driver and also returned to playing football and was setting up a dog walking business before she was aware of the surveillance, so has been fully open about running a business that necessarily involves walking dogs and sometimes keeping them on leads. "The claimant should consider herself fortunate that her conscious exaggeration has not had devastating consequences." "The defendant has not satisfied the burden of establishing fundamental dishonesty," he added. Ms Boyd had sued under the Animals Act 1971, claiming the horse was a "dangerous" animal because of its propensity to take fright at a "perceived threat". But Ms Crawford, for Ms Hughes, told the judge that shying, side-stepping or sharply changing direction is "characteristic behaviour" in thoroughbred racehorses and thus is not "abnormal" behaviour which would make the owner liable under the act. Ruling against Ms Boyd on liability, the judge said: "It is the claimant's case that Foxy was known to shy/jink more easily than other horses "I accept that the horse had some reason for moving as it did. It did not stumble, it was an intentional side-step. "Even if it were the case that a horse always moves sideways when cantering if it perceives danger, that does not mean every time a horse moves sideways it perceives danger, as this would ignore the counterexamples which refute the premise e.g. a horse may move sideways because it sees an uneven patch on the ground and wishes to avoid it. "The horse may have moved simply because he did not like something on the surface of the gallops, such as change of colour. In my view, it is difficult to see how a horse simply avoiding a patch of gallops by 'jinking' around it could be readily considered as it reacting to 'a perceived threat'. "In this case, the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence and causative effect of the characteristic relied upon; that the shy/jink/sharp movement to the right was due to Foxy having 'perceived a threat'. "For the reasons set out above, the claim fails," the judge concluded. Personal injury claimants enjoy an indemnity against being landed with the legal costs of their claim unless found to be "fundamentally dishonest," so Ms Boyd, despite her "conscious exaggeration," will not be handed the bill for the case.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Yahoo
Dog owners warned as sheep attacks rise in Cumbria
Dog owners have been warned after a rise in sheep attacks in Cumbria. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) and Cumbria Police have urged people to keep their pets under control in the countryside. This comes after an increase in attacks on sheep, which is believed to be partly due to a surge in dog ownership during the coronavirus lockdown. As the lambing season begins, the NFU and police are working to encourage pet owners to follow the Countryside Code and ensure their dogs are kept under control. The most recent NFU Mutual data shows that, nationally, the claims costs of dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £2.4 million in 2023. This is a 30 per cent increase compared to the previous year. Cumbrian farmers are also reporting a significant rise in incidents. NFU Cumbria chair John Longmire said: "There was a big rise in dog ownership in lockdown and many people don't understand what can happen in the countryside when they don't have control of their dogs. "Sadly, the situation has been getting worse. "It does have a financial impact on the business, but the animal welfare issue is the main concern. "It is really awful to see the animals suffer in this way, and it is upsetting for the pet owners who just didn't expect their dog was capable of such things." Livestock worrying, which includes barking, chasing, biting, and killing, is a criminal offence. Dog owners could be liable for prosecution or a fine under the Animals Act 1971. Incidents can cause anxiety, miscarriage, and injuries among flocks. Sergeant Amanda McKirdy, of Cumbria Constabulary's Rural Crime Team, said: "We urge dog owners to keep their pets on leads around livestock. "The majority of dog owners do take care around livestock, but it's extremely important to follow signs and stick to footpaths. "It is also important to check your properties and gardens are secure when you have dogs." The NFU and its members have campaigned to tighten the legislation around livestock worrying. Aphra Brandreth, Chester South and Eddisbury MP, presented The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill last year. This was welcomed by the NFU and aims to give the police greater powers to deal with problem dogs and respond to livestock worrying more effectively. If passed, the Bill would also broaden the scope of legislation to incorporate livestock such as alpacas and llamas, as well as widening the enforcement area to include roads and paths. Mr Longmire added: "At this time of year many ewes are lambing, and these sheep and offspring are highly vulnerable, and we have an individual and community responsibility to ensure that we all get to enjoy our countryside without causing distress and harm to livestock."
