The Wild West Was Won by Horses, Wasn't It?

What about laws regarding cruelty to animals?

There is a law that disallows cruelty to animals. A friend, Minoo Joshi, was a purser with an airline company. He often arrived home late at night. He stayed on the second floor. His first-floor neighbour loved cats. He left food for stray cats on the small landing. One night, a cat bit Minoo. He, in turn, brought out his air gun and fired a shot at the cat; the cat ran away. Minoo was arrested for cruelty to animals. The maximum fine was Rs400. The poor guy spent the later years of his life attending courts, until he died in an accidental fire.

It is equally illegal to feed animals in public places. Dogs, especially, are known to bite children, in the frenzy to get at the food ahead of others. Pigeons, when fed with grain, roost in nearby rafters. It is said that their excreta carries meningitis germs. True or not, the stuff stinks and attracts cockroaches which then invite lizards. For those who do not believe this: visit our home for a tour. All of us live behind nylon nets.

But what about horses? In Connecticut, a horse bit a two-year-old kid. The enraged father sued the farm-owner. The court held for the farm, not for the toddler with the permanent scar. The judgement was appealed.

You be the judge.

The child’s father had gone to the farm of his own free will and voluntarily took the child close enough to the horse, to be bitten. The father was, in fact, petting the horses. The horse-owners said that the animal was so docile that this had never happened before. In fact, it was the horse’s first bite.

The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order. At this point, readers are taken back to another article in Moneylife that discussed the ‘wild beast theory’. If a person knows, or is sufficiently aware, of a POSSIBLE mishap occurring, IT IS THE OWNER’S DUTY TO SAFEGUARD OTHERS. The duty of care and negligence dovetailing into one.

Why did the appellate court so decide? We quote, “… held that horses belonged to a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious. More specifically, (the court) held that there was an issue of fact as to whether horses as a class possess a natural tendency to bite, possibly causing injury to a person, even if a particular horse had not previously displayed that propensity. Thus, it was error for the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit…”

The matter went to the Supreme Court. It agreed with what we have always maintained. That, if there is a malady, there needs be a remedy.

We quote again, “After a thorough analysis of the substantive law governing liability caused by domestic animals, the (Supreme) Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and held that horses belong to a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious.” The Court concluded that, as a matter of law, the owner or keeper of a horse has an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries that are foreseeable, regardless of whether the animal had previously caused an injury or was roaming at large. Accordingly, the owner or keeper may be held liable for negligence if an injury is the result of not taking adequate steps. It also said that, under the circumstances, the minor’s injury was foreseeable because horses do have a natural propensity to bite (So, the immediate solution is to have a warning displayed. And keep your dog on a tight leash or stop feeding cats where they may bite. People are becoming aware of their rights. And the courts are backing them.

Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai.

Please email your comments to bapoomalcolm@gmail.com or mail@moneylife.in

Courtesy: Moneylife