Dog Attack in UK Law

The mere fact that a particular animal shared its potentially dangerous characteristics with other animals of the same species will not preclude the satisfaction of requirement (b) if on the particular facts the likelihood of damage was attributable to characteristics normally found in animals of the same species at times or in circumstances corresponding with those in which the damage actually occurred.

Dogs are not normally fierce or prone to attack humans; a dog which has a propensity to do this at all times and in all places and without discrimination as to persons, would clearly fall within the first limb. One that is only aggressive in particular circumstances, for example when guarding its territory or, if a bitch, when it has a litter of pups, will come within the second limb.

A person keeping an animal "mansutae naturae" which he knows has a propensity to do a particular kind of mischief is under an absolute duty to prevent it form doing that kind of mischief and is therefore liable without proof of negligence for any damage caused by the animal's acting in accordance with that know propensity.

The Section is very cumbrously worded and will give rise to several difficulties in future. Those circumstances are "particular circumstances" within Section 2(2) (b). It was "due" to those circumstances that the damage was likely to be severe if an untruder did enter on its territory. Section 2(2)(c): Those characteristics were known to the keeper. It follows that the keeper of the dog is strictly liable unless he can bring himself within one of the exceptions in Section 5.

In this case, however, it is indeed difficult to conclude that it was anything other than the particular characteristics of these horses once they had been terrified which led to their escape and to this accident taking place. They were still not behaving in the ordinary way in which they would behave when taken on the road. One witness referred to them bolting; another to them trotting across the road in front of the vehicles; they crashed into the vehicles rather than the other way about.

I asked Ms McGahey KC whether that truth – the absence of a guarantee – could ever be a relevant consideration. Her answer was that yes it could be relevant depending on the other evidence as to the dog's past behaviour and temperament. The Judgment referred to serious and continued aggression towards another dog as an immediate response to being set free. It was relevant behaviour on the only occasion when Lightning had been at large and in public without a lead and unmuzzled.

I have pointed out earlier in this judgment that the basis of the defence of public interest in a breach of confidence action cannot be the same as the basis of such defence to an action for infringement of copyright. In an action for breach of confidence the foundation of the action can fall away if that is required in the public interest, but that can never happen in a copyright action.