HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) (Hansard, 10 March 1965)

§ Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway. I am encouraged to hope that on this occasion we shall be able to pass my proposed Bill through the House, particularly in view of the reference made to this matter by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio when he addressed the House recently.

The Bill I seek to introduce is for the purpose of removing an anomaly in our laws. Believe it or not, a medieval rule still exists by which horses, cows or sheep can stray on to a road by right, thus causing serious injury, and sometimes death, to road users, without the owner being liable for damages to the person injured or the dependent relatives of a person who may be killed.

The road user involved might be the most careful, experienced and reliable driver of a motor car, someone using every precaution, and yet may find himself in sudden collision with animals, due entirely to the animals rushing on to the road and making it impossible for him to avoid an accident. As a result the driver might suffer the most severe consequences, without any redress from the person through whose fault the animals were enabled to stray on to the road.

Lord Justice Omerod, in a case heard in the Court of Appeal towards the end of 1962—Ellis v. Johnstone—said that the rule which allowed sheep and cattle to stray on to the highway was of ancient origin. It went back through the centuries to the time when fields were not hedged or fenced and roads were merely tracks. He gave a very clear indication, as did a fellow judge—one who was highly respected in this House, Lord Justice Donovan—that it was time the law was changed by Act of Parliament.

This untenable position of the law of civil liability for damage done by animals has been the subject of concern to the community for very many years. Yet, although a committee set up as far 421 back as 1953 which was presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of the time, Lord Goddard, gave its report in support of change, and although attempts have been made on a number of occasions to get a Bill on to the Statute Book to carry their recommendations into effect, including a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and several by myself, these have not been successful.

In another case, Lord Green, Master of the Rolls, said: The rule appears to be ill-adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the 20th century. If it should prove not to be open to the House of Lords to deal with the rule, the attention of the legislature might be directed to considering the whole position with a view to ensuring the safety of His Majesty's subjects when they are lawfully using the highway … On any view we think it desirable that the rule should be modified to meet modern conditions of traffic where a road runs through enclosed country. It is remarkable that, whereas section 25 of the Highway Act, 1864, imposes a penalty on the owner of cattle 'found straying on or lying about any highway or across any part thereof or by the sides thereof except on such parts of any highway as pass over any common or waste or unenclosed land', the law gives no remedy to a person who is injured as a consequence. As already stated, we think liability should depend on negligence, and accordingly recommend that an occupier should he under a duty to take reasonable care that cattle or poultry lawfully on land in his occupation do not escape therefrom on to the highway, and that the occupier should be responsible for all damage caused to persons or chattels (damage to realty being already covered by the action of cattle trespass) by cattle or poultry which escape owing to a breach of that duty whether or not acting in accordance with their ordinary nature. I was approached several years ago by Mr. and Mrs. Woodward, the parents of a very promising young woman teacher, who was involved in an accident caused by a straying animal. It was a heart-rending case—a loving daughter of ability and talent was taken from them by an accident of this nature. They were and are determined that this should not happen to others if they can possibly help it.

422 As I stated in the House when I applied for leave to introduce the Bill before I have received a petition containing about 600 names, from people in a small portion of the country, including my own constituency, for a change in the law. The Woodwards and I are confident that a vast number of further signatories to the petition could be obtained, but I am hoping that this will not be necessary, and that the House will now realise that a Bill of this nature is long overdue.

I have also received a very large number of letters from various parts of the country and I should like to read one or two short extracts, so that the House will readily realise the importance of this matter. From the Ferndale and District Motor Cycle and Car Club, I have received a letter which says: I enclose brief details of nine incidents involving animals on the road. My remarks to my wife on reading the paragraph were, 'At last this menace may be ended'. The nine incidents reported are a very very small percentage of incidents which all motorists in our area have been putting up with for years"— this is in South Wales— and I do not honestly know of any incident where the owner of the animal has been made to pay the penalty. The sheep in this area are a disgrace to all respectable farmers everywhere and despite the grand efforts made by the local authority to 'impound' them, they still wander the streets by day and night, and at night they simply cannot be seen until they are a few yards only away. The writer then gives a number of incidents. He says that a Mr. Thomas, of 78, James Street, Maerdy, Rhondda, was involved in an incident, and adds the details: Sheep wandered from behind parked car, in avoiding sheep driver crashed into house wall. Brand new side-car written off, replaced by insurance company—lost no-claim bonus. Damage to animal nil. Damage to machine, rear wheel, front forks damaged. Personal injuries, bruised fingers, leg and shock. Lost two days' work. No compensation from owner of sheep. He then gives similar illustrations of cases in which very much more serious damage was caused.

I cannot believe that anyone in the House would want an archaic law of this nature to continue. It may well be that, when the Bill comes forward—if I am given leave to present it—some Amendments will be necessary to cover 423 exceptional cases. But one thing is 100 per cent. certain in my mind, and that is that this kind of position cannot be allowed to continue to exist. Indeed, so strong has the opinion of the public, as well as of the judiciary, been in respect of this, that I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish to see a Bill of this nature stopped.