0370 270 6000

Flack v Hudson

27 November 2000
The issues

Animals Act 1971 – injury to rider – whether owner of horse “keeper”.

The facts

The Claimant sued under the Fatal Accident Act 1976 as widower of Shirley Ann Flack, Salli Jane Hudson. The rider was thrown whilst riding with the owners consent. The horse had the propensity to be frightened of farm machinery. The rider had not been told.

The decision

The Defendant was the keeper. The deceased was also a keeper for the purposes of Section 6 (3) of the Animals Act. There was nothing in the construction of the act to prevent one keeper suing another keeper.

The Judge had found as a fact that the horse was frightened of farm machinery. This was clearly an abnormal characteristic within the meaning of Section 2 (2).

The Defendant’s appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up