ANIMALHorse - damages - strict liability for normal characteristics of species in particular circumstances Mirvahedy v Henley and Another: CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President, Lords Justice Hale and Keene): 21 November 2001The claimant sought damages for personal injuries suffered when the car he was driving collided with a horse belonging to the defendants which had panicked following some unknown event and escaped from its field.

The judge had found that the second limb of section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971 imposing strict liability was satisfied but had concluded that, since there was not the necessary degree of immediacy in the interaction between the characteristics relied upon and the doing of the damage, the defendants were not liable.

The claimant appealed.

The defendants cross-appealed against the finding of strict liability.Christopher Sharp QC and Richard Stead (instructed by Foot Anstey Sargent, Exeter) for the claimant; Richard Lissack QC and David Westcott (instructed by P Jane MD Phillips, Tavistock) for the defendants.Held, allowing the appeal and dismissing the cross-appeal that, on the facts it was clear that it was the particular characteristics of the animal behaving in the unusual way caused by its panic that had caused the accident; and, since the wording of section 2(2)(b) and the relevant parliamentary material demonstrated an intention to impose strict liability for damage caused by animals displaying temporary characteristics in particular circumstances or at certain times which were nonetheless normal to the breed, the defendants were liable despite not knowing of the existence of the particular circumstances.