David Regan takes the reins of the debate surrounding liability for horse-related injuries
The Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) imposes strict liability on the keeper of a domesticated animal which causes injury. Since the House of Lords clarified its interpretation in 2003, the scope of the strict liability imposed has grown (see Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, [2003] 2 All ER 401).
Subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal have tended to express a desire to limit this extension, but with very mixed effect. However, in two recent decisions the Court of Appeal has found that the rider of a horse has consented to the risk of injury from it, extending the defence of consent so that it poses a much greater bar to a claim succeeding, Turnbull v Warrener [2012] EWCA Civ 412, [2012] All ER (D) 51 (Apr); Goldsmith v Patchcott [2012] EWCA Civ 183, [2012] All ER (D) 179 (Feb). It may also have a wider application in cases involving injury arising from dangerous sports.
Oracular Act
AA 1971 is not an easy statute. Its language had been described most
