The recent Judgement of Morrison v Oakden 2021 CSOH 96 explores the law of negligence with regards to animals, in particular horse riding schools. Generally speaking, if you are injured by an animal, the first port of call for any personal injury solicitor will be to consider the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 and/or the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960.
Both provide strict liability on the part of owners of species whose members are, by their physical attributes or habits likely to kill, injure severely or cause damage. For example, dogs under the law are deemed to fall into this category. Therefore, if your dog bites another person, you have a strict liability under the law. The injured party will therefore be able to recover damages from you directly, or via your home insurance.
In contrast, the recent case of Morrison discusses the basis of liability at common law. Common law is the law declared by judges in deciding the outcome of cases. At common law, a person is liable for injury to a person only if it was reasonably foreseeable.
In the discussed case, a young 17 year old stable hand was employed by Mr Oakden at a riding school in Fife. She was instructed to exercise a horse called Macamore. This particular horse was large and noted to be active with a high level of energy by its previous owner.
The stable hand had been instructed not to take the horse on the same track it had been exercised on earlier that morning. The stable hand opted to take the horse on a different track and as she was turning back to the farm, the horse reared which dismounted the rider. As a result of the fall, she suffered serious injuries including a head injury and a spinal fracture.
The stable hand intimated the claim on the Riding School for her injuries. In Court, expert evidence from both the stable hand and the Riding School was heard. Consultants in equine behaviour reached conflicting opinions as to the likelihood of the horse to misbehave.
The Court ultimately ruled that the Riding School was not liable for the stable hand’s injuries. They had reasonably considered that she was competent to ride the horse and there was no evidence that they should reasonably have anticipated behaviour by the horse that would have made it unsafe for her to ride him.
The case reminds us that the determination of the issue of negligence is fact sensitive. It will depend on a case by case basis. In some circumstances, the statutory approach will apply in that strict liability can be enforced by virtue of the type of animal involved.
However, if relying on common law, the particular circumstances and context may vary infinitely. Those operating Riding Schools for instance, must be wary of special risks and vulnerabilities of particular individuals and the horses whom they are asked to ride.
How we can help
If you think you may have a claim following an accident, please contact us to discuss the matter on 0800 808 5176 or complete our online enquiry form and a member of our team will get back to you right away.
