Liability for accidents caused by horses

When a horse escapes its paddock and causes an accident on the road, the question of liability arises. Who is responsible for the damage or injury caused by the horse?

Horses are a great source of joy for those lucky enough to call them their own. But as any horse owner knows, our magnificent friends come with significant responsibilities, including financial and legal. These powerful animals rely on “flight” as its primary means of survival, and react accordingly in the face of perceived threats. An out-of-control horse can be dangerous and poses a serious risk of personal injury or property damage. When a horse escapes its paddock and causes an accident on the road, the question of liability arises. Who is responsible for the damage or injury caused by the horse? The answer to that question can be complex and will depend on the circumstances of the case. However, there are some general principles that horse owners should understand to protect themselves from potential legal liability.

In general, horse owners are legally responsible for keeping their horses contained and preventing them from escaping.

If a horse owner fails to take reasonable steps to prevent their horse from escaping and causing an accident on the road, they may be held liable for damage and injury caused by the horse.

It’s important to note that liability does not arise simply because there was an accident.

Liability in negligence arises when there has been a failure to take reasonable care in the control or management of the horse. In the case of a horse escaping its paddock, an important consideration as to whether reasonable care was taken will not only be the general adequacy of the fencing and gates in place but also the care and maintenance of the fences and gates. If the horse is agisted or living somewhere other than the horse owner’s property, the person responsible for the horse and the condition of the fencing may be liable.

An example of these concepts can be found in the case of Woodley Osteopathic Services Pty Ltd v Transport Accident Commission and another [2013] VSCA 350.

In this case, a horse which had been agisted on land adjacent to a highway escaped from its paddock and collided with a vehicle. One passenger was killed and another was injured. The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) paid compensation to the passengers, and brought an indemnity claim against (a) the Woodley company as the owner of the property, and (b) the tenant who was renting part of the property at the time of the accident. The TAC alleged that they were both liable for negligence because the horse escaped through an open paddock gate. It was unclear at trial how the gate had come to be left open, but the TAC’s case was that it was due to a defective locking mechanism. The entrance gate to the property had also been left open.

The trial judge found that both the Woodley company and the tenant were negligent, as the open paddock gate and open entrance gate constituted a failure to take sufficient precautions to prevent the horse from escaping.[1] However, on appeal, this decision was reversed. While the judges of the Court of Appeal agreed that the Woodley company owed the highway users a duty of care, they held that the foreseeable risk of the horse escaping from the paddock was very small.[2] At the time leading up to the accident, the gate latching mechanism had not failed and there had never been any problems with it. There was no reason to suspect that there was a risk of the horse escaping, apart from a theoretical possibility that the gate could be left open by a stranger.[3] The Court also held that “the exercise of reasonable care did not require the [property owner] to institute a failsafe system to ensure that the entrance gate also remained closed at all times”. In other words, the Woodley company did not breach its duty of care to the highway users. Further, the court held that the tenant did not owe a duty of care to the highway users in respect of any risk associated with the horse, as he did not have control or responsibility for the horse’s paddock. This case demonstrates how questions of liability can be complex and highly contextual.

As a horse owner, or as someone responsible for horses on your property, it is important to be aware of your legal responsibilities. This includes ensuring that your horse is properly contained and taking reasonable steps to prevent them from escaping. You may wish to consult a lawyer familiar with your local laws for advice, particularly if you are operating an agistment centre or are involved in a dispute. Your insurance broker may also be able to provide guidance on insurance options and coverage.

*Information is general and not legal advice.

This article first appeared in Hoofbeats magazine Vol 45-2 August/September 2023.

[1] Transport Accident Commission v A Woodley Osteopathic Services Pty Ltd (Unreported, County Court, Judge Howie, 22 February 2012) at [21]-[22].

[2] Woodley Osteopathic Services Pty Ltd v Transport Accident Commission and another [2013] VSCA 350, at [29].

[3] Woodley Osteopathic Services Pty Ltd v Transport Accident Commission and another [2013] VSCA 350, at [31].