United Kingdom Llb Law Of Tort

The Law of TortOwners of wolfs that sheath injury or aggrieve were subjected to pursuit in the England . These faunas could belong to a dangerous reputationd species , to a species that was non altogether that dangerous , a domesticated species or control . Owners of living creatures who had familiarity about the dangerous char wagereristics of their brutes were liable for the legal consequences of the modify or injury sustaind by them . This situation changed with the introduction of the savages sham 1971 . Under this act the appropriate authorities could determine whether the nature of a particular species of animal was dangerous or non . The law imposes stringent liability on the owners of animals . In the visit of non - dangerous species animals the liability imposed is based on the cognition of the owner i n respect of the damage the animal could ready Contributory negligence and assumption of risk are whatsoever of the defences available to the owner of animals . The act disallows defences that cite excuses for the damage gaind by their animals much(prenominal) as an act of god or the act of a third partyIn the causal agent of Mirvahedy v . Henley , which was heard by the House of Lords in March 2003 , it was decided that the owner of an animal was liable for the damage caused by it . In this cuticle , Mirvahedy was traveling home in a car , which was struck by a runaway provide that belonged to Henley . Consequently , Mirvahedy suffered serious injuries and the long horse also sustained injuries to which it later succumbed . As such lead horses belonging to Henley stampeded on being frightened and this incident occurred in the night .

It was acknowledged by the court that such style was common amongst horses that had been frightened to the required degreeIn the House of Lords the question raised was whether the keeper of an animal that was not dangerous and which had behaved in a mien that was normal under the circumstances for such an animal , strictly liable for any damage caused by such behaviour . It was held by their Lordships that the means in which the horses had responded to what had caused them alarm was in no way extraordinary . Consequently , the circumstances of the case would fall under the purview of subsection 2 (2 (b ) of the animal(prenominal) Act 1971 . Therefore , the defense of Henley that the horses had behaved in a manner for which he could not be held liable was untenable because the mishap tran spired due to the panic stricken behaviour of the horses , which could be construed to be the normal behaviour of horses that had been frightenedThis interpretation of the Animals Act of 1971 resulted in a significant increase in the liability of the owners of animals for the damage caused by these animals . A particular subsection of the act requires the claimant to establish that the cause of the damage was a characteristic of the animal that was normally hatful up in it . Moreover , the next section in that...If you urgency to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay