Page 956 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

- 3 -
02231032/CAPE/KMS 2017
LAW
UNIT 2 Paper 032
KEY AND MARK SCHEME

Students are expected to explain any one example of strict liability
in tort showing how liability is established.

Any example clearly explained 3 marks each 3 marks
Any relevant case/example clearly explained 2 marks
Coherence 2 marks

[13 marks]

(b) Principles of liability for animals

- For purposes of liability for harm other than trespass, the law
distinguishes between domesticated and wild animals

- The keeper of domesticated animals (Mansuetae naturae), which
include dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and horses, is strictly liable
for the harm they cause only if the keeper had actual knowledge
that the animal had the particular trait or propensity that caused
the harm

- The dog must have shown a propensity in the past to do harm of
that kind and the owner or keeper is proved to have had knowledge
of such propensity

- The trait must be a potentially harmful one

- Not necessary to show that the dog had actually done the particular
type of damage on a previous occasion, but exhibited a tendency
to do that kind of harm

- Onus on the plaintiff to prove this (Barnes v. Lucille)

- The requisite knowledge of an animal’s vicious propensity must
relate to the particular propensity that caused the damage, for
example, if dog attacks a man, it must be shown that the animal
had a propensity to attack humans: it would not be sufficient to
show a propensity to attack other animals – Glanville v. Sutton

- It is sufficient to show that the dog habitually rushed out of
kennel and attempted to bite passersby (Work v. Gilling).

- Keepers of species that are normally considered ‘wild’(Ferrae
naturae) are strictly liable for the harm these pets cause if they
escape, whether or not the animal in question is known to be
dangerous.

- Because such animals are known to revert to their natural
tendencies, they are considered to be wild no matter how well
trained or domesticated.