Animal Attractions May Face Higher Insurance after Bill Fails

26th March 2008

Categories: What's New, Business Support

Animal Attractions May Face Higher Insurance after Bill Fails

An amendment to the 1971 Animals Act, which would have relieved responsible animal keepers from unfair compensation claims, has failed, despite Government support.

The amendment failed at its second reading on the 14th March - despite the DEFRA minister Jonathan Shaw confirming that the government backed the alterations to the Act.

This now leaves the keepers of all animals that come into contact with the public open to claims for compensation, even if there was no negligence on their part and the damage occurred as a result of the animal's normal behaviour. This will have serious implications for businesses such as riding schools and animal attractions, who can now be sued for any personal or property damage, however responsibly they manage and run their businesses.

As a result, insurance for these businesses, which is already stiff, may rise to prohibitive levels for smaller operations.

Reactions from the Countryside Alliance and the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) - both of which had firmly supported the bill - expressed the disappointment and frustration felt by many rural businesses.

The original 1971 Animals Act was intended to encourage animal owners to manage their animals responsibly, to protect livestock and to put extra pressure on keepers of dangerous animals, such as snakes and large cats, by giving them 'strict liability' for whatever damage or loss the animals caused.

However, the wording of the Act in this area, according to Lord Nicholls, is "opaque". A 2003 House of Lords ruling in a compensation case went against a responsible animal owner despite the fact that the Lords accepted the owner had not been negligent in any way and the domestic animal had not behaved out of character.

This ruling massively increased the risk for non-dangerous animal owners, especially those with animals that regularly come into contact with the public. They can now be sued for compensation even when taking all possible precautions and when the animal is behaving normally. Rural businesses are particularly at risk, yet they can least afford the increased insurance charges. Prohibitive costs also prevent some new businesses from starting.

The Private Member's Bill for the amendment, which would have clarified the Act and alleviated liability from responsible owners of non-dangerous species, failed despite cross party support.

The Countryside Alliance, amongst others, has called on the government to take further action.

You can read more on this story at:
The Countryside Alliance at: http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/our-news-and-comment/views-and-comment/bill-fails-despite-%22persuasive%22-argument/
and
The Country Land and Business Association at:http://www.cla.org.uk/News_and_Press/Latest_Releases/Animal_Welfare/Compensation/9566.htm/

or read the Act here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1971/cukpga_19710022_en_1

RSS News Feeds