Devon TRF Group Forum

Bob Adams · Clubman A

Animals, including dogs in a public place

Corky · Clubman B

Control Of Dogs On Roads

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/27

gaschef · Devon's Best

I do believe that in the late 70,s or early 80,s the law changed and animals under the control or guidance of humans no longer had precedence on the road over vehicular traffic, in fact animals controlled or guided by humans were required to give priority to traffic. THis came up when I was taking my heavy goods licence and slowed down for a horse, the comment from the instructor was if you do that on your test, you will be failed for not making normal progress.

During my test the examiner asked the question what do you do, if you see an animal being guided on the road, the answer carry on, it is the duty of the person in control of the animal to get the animal out of the way. If not they can be charged with obstructing the highway. If they start waving there hands and telling you to stop or slow down they are commiting an offence

An animal being guided or controlled, can be a horse being ridden, or a herd of cows a flock of sheep etc being driven along the road, dogs on or off leads etc, animals that jump fences break out of enclosures etc come under another bit of legislation.

Is also worth remembering that if someone leaves a gate open and animals escape and cause an accident it is the owner of the animals who is responsible under the law, not the idiot who failed to secure the gate, and we wonder at times why gates are locked

As far as I am aware the only animal it does not apply to is a cat

Just out of interest, if you were to see a squad of military personell marching down the road in formation, they have the same legal standing as a vehicle, and in the hours of darkness they must display a white light to the front and a red light at the rear of the formation

No doubt this will throw up some more wonderful examples of barmy british law

Dont know if it has changed but at one time you could not be charged with speeding on a push bike, you could however be charged and convicted of the offence of frantic peddalling. I know as two mates of mine overtook a cop car on a tandem, and got done for it, awarded a 15p fine as this was the maximum the law allowed

Bob Adams · Clubman A

Bob Adams wrote:
If anyone feels like challenging the owner of a dog which is not under control, this is the law.
14. Section 2(2) established a different regime where damage is caused by an animal not belonging to a dangerous species. This subsection applies, therefore, to all species of animals commonly domesticated here. It includes horses. The material part of section 2(2) provides:

(a) the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe; and
(b) the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and
(c) those characteristics were known to that keeper '
The full case law is here;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030320/mirva-1.htm
What it says simply is; the owner of an animal is responcible for its actions or any damage or injury it may cause. This came from a local case on the Exeter Torquay road when a horse jumped a fence out in front of Mirvahedy's car, even though the owners were tucked up in bed.

-- Edited by Bob Adams on Wednesday 8th of January 2014 11:27:13 AM

-- Edited by Bob Adams on Wednesday 8th of January 2014 11:28:44 AM

I should perhaps have said "Civil Law" with regard to liability in the case of an accident, as appossed to the Road Traffic Act.

FBF · Clubman A

Not quite so, if you read on, the case brought against the horse owners failed and an appeal thrown out as it did not fit the criteria of the act.

However a dog owner should have a dog under proper control at all times, whether on or off a lead. Plenty of law governing dogs and control, if a dog even acts aggressively towards you the owner can be fined.

It is also important to note that whilst a dog has to be held on a lead on a designated road, it does not follow that just because a route has been "designated" as a road ie a unsurfaced legal route or otherwise, it has to be designated by the local authority as road or highway that dogs must be kept on a lead.

In the case of Exeter council they designate all roads and pavements owned by them, in the case of Torbay there was a list covering designated roads which was later amended to all adopted roads in the borough. In the case of a district council such as Teignbridge there are probably only specified roads and areas.

Generally speaking it is very unlikely that a green lane will be designated as such, so be aware when you have just run over Mavis's chiwawa and trying to peel it off your front tyre stating it "should have been on a lead" may not be a good starting point. wink

Bob Adams · Clubman A

FBF wrote:
Not quite so, if you read on, the case brought against the horse owners failed and an appeal thrown out as it did not fit the criteria of the act.

However a dog owner should have a dog under proper control at all times, whether on or off a lead. Plenty of law governing dogs and control, if a dog even acts aggressively towards you the owner can be fined.

It is also important to note that whilst a dog has to be held on a lead on a designated road, it does not follow that just because a route has been "designated" as a road ie a unsurfaced legal route or otherwise, it has to be designated by the local authority as road or highway that dogs must be kept on a lead.

In the case of Exeter council they designate all roads and pavements owned by them, in the case of Torbay there was a list covering designated roads which was later amended to all adopted roads in the borough. In the case of a district council such as Teignbridge there are probably only specified roads and areas.

Generally speaking it is very unlikely that a green lane will be designated as such, so be aware when you have just run over Mavis's chiwawa and trying to peel it off your front tyre stating it "should have been on a lead" may not be a good starting point.

In March 2003, horse owners Andrew and Susan Henley were held strictly liable following a Law Lords' interpretation of the Animals Act 1971, for injuries to motorist Hossein Mirvahedy in an accident after their horses escaped from a field. This case has set a precedent and led to insurance premium increases for every horse owner in England and Wales.

From personal involvement, the same law applies on the Granite Way.

-- Edited by Bob Adams on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 02:45:20 PM

-- Edited by Bob Adams on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 02:45:43 PM