Road traffic accidents are often associated with the involvement of vehicles; however, this is not always the cases. There have been instances where animals have been the cause of such incidents.

Where accidents involve animals, most cases will be decided under the law of negligence or tort, and some have succeeded under the Animals Act 1971. It is essential for client to demonstrate evidence of a negligent act, assess whether there was any control to prevent the animal from being on the roadway, and determine if appropriate warning signs were present.

The case of Donaldson v Wilson [2004] held that the Defendant was liable for the accident caused by their stray cattle escaping from the farm onto a public highway. Negligence was established on the basis that a gate wrongly left open by a walker and the derelict farm in between the Defendant’s farm and road had no barrier between it and the road. Liability couldn’t point towards the walker as there was no warning or reminders to the public to close the gate. It was concluded that the Defendant failed to make adequate risk assessments and take all reasonable steps to prevent his cattle from escaping and subsequently creating danger for road users.

Section 8 of the Animals Act 1971 imposes a responsibility to prevent animals from straying onto the highway, thereby potentially causing damage. This obligation raises questions regarding negligence, which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Section 8 states that “(2) Where the damage has been caused by animals straying from an unfenced land to a highway a person who placed them on the land shall not be regarded as having committed a breach of the duty to take care by reason only of placing them there if – (a) the land is common land, or is land situated in an area where fencing is not customary, or is a town or village green; and (b) he had a right to place the animals on that land”

We represented a motorcyclist who encountered a herd of cows in his path.

The accident circumstances were that our client was coming around a bend, when they unexpectedly encountered around 50 cows in the road, leaving no opportunity for him to take evasive action. Thankfully our client escaped relatively unharmed.

We placed reliance on the relevant caselaw and sections from the Animals Act 1971 which resulted in liability being admitted. We were then able to recover settlement for personal injury and losses for our client.

Bike Assist Legal is excited to announce our enhanced support for neurodivergent clients during the claims process.

Earlier this year, members of our dedicated claims teams collaborated to create user-friendly flowcharts and comprehensive FAQ documents. These resources empower our clients to better understand the claims process and provide the necessary evidence for smoother claim progression.

We know how difficult navigating claims can be at the best of times, so if you have any additional needs, please reach out to see how a member of our team can help.

Bike Assist Legal recently represented a famous musician who suffered a life-long wrist injury. It was, for this particular Client, problematic as he was a drummer. This meant that he was not able to perform at reunion concerts and his ability to practice was extremely limited. The Client’s love for something he had done his whole life was over in the blink of an eye.

This lead Bike Assist Legal to investigate whether, among other losses, a loss of congenial employment award was a reasonable loss to pursue.

The inclusion of a loss of congenial employment award was, for this Client, significant and shows how the team of dedicated lawyers at Bike Assist Legal are always thinking beyond the norm.