The animals act 1971 makes insufficient distinction between liability for dangerous species and non-dangerous species of animals.

The Animals Act 1971 replaced common law provisions concerning liability by the owner or keeper for harm caused by animals.

Grade: A-C | £3.99.

 This work explains the liability for dangerous and non-dangerous species of animals under the Animals Act 1971.

The essay sets out how the Act defines dangerous animals and considers what amounts to 'dangerous' for the purposes of the Act.

The liability of the keeper of non-dangerous animals is also explained.

The Animals Act 1971 has received the attention of the courts on a number of occasions and the leading cases are referred to in context.  The reported cases include:

Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus (1957); Tutin v Chipperfield Promotions (1980);  Mirvahedy (FC) v Henley and another (2003);  Smith v Ainger (1990) and others.  

The former common law provisions are briefly mentioned. The issue of strict liability is discussed as is the question of meaning and interpretation of the Act which some have said is not an easy Act to construe.

Finally the work finishes with a mention of the matter of possible defences and a full discussion of the accuracy of the statement in the question.  A number of examples are given of where it can be said that the Act does properly make a distinction and those times when it could be said that it does not.  The matter of fairness to pet owners is also discussed.  

The work can, as always, be developed and extended by you to suit your particular needs.


(Word count 1775)