0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Tierney v Barber, Queen's Bench Division, 19 February 2001

19 February 2001
The issues

Liability Of Dog Owner For Dog On Road

The facts

Claimant motorcyclist was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with the Defendant’s dog. The Defendant lived close to the site of the accident and as a result of a previous escape by the dog he added wire netting to the gate and fencing.

The dog was chained whilst no one was with her and only unchained if an adult was present. However, on the day of the accident the dog escaped and crossed the road. It was on the way back that she collided with the motorcyclist and the dog was killed. Witnesses has seen the motorcyclist accelerate from roadworks previously at high speed and pulling a “wheeley” in the process immediately prior to the accident. The Claimant suffered personal injury and sued Defendant dog owner.

The decision

It was reasonably foreseeable that damage or injury was likely to result if the dog escaped.

Although the Defendant had a system for securing the dog the system was insufficient to contain a dog “determined to escape”.

The Claimant has acted in a reckless manner a very short time before the accident. The preferred expert evidence however was that both wheels had been in contact with the ground at the time of impact. Moreover the evidence was such that even if the Claimant had been travelling within the temporary speed limit of 20 mph rather than the 60 mph he was actually going at he would have been able to anticipate the impact with the dog or to take avoiding action.

Defendant had not called any evidence to show that the Claimant’s injuries were worse due to the speed of the impact. The Defendant was negligent and there would be no deduction for contributory negligence.

(This seems a monstrous decision).

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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