[PPT] - RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS EMERGENCY RESPONSE Safety Licence Policy PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Dogs bite. (its their job sometimes)

Applying the principles of prevention to somebody who probably wont read them.

We plan, scan, and adapt...

SLIDE 2

SLIDE 3

Policy and Work Instructions

PLAN SCAN ADAPT

Safety Licence Valid Stop

SYSTEMS RISK ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE Investigate / review

SLIDE 4

John the Meter reader

The solution completely depends on behaviour…………

SLIDE 5

Overall

Have a clear system
Ensure the system is realistically going to be followed by the actual

people involved

Train, train, train, train, train
Provide the ‘fire extinguisher’ solutions for the times when despite

your controls it still goes wrong

Don’t let it lie, review, refresh and constantly monitor.

SLIDE 6

www.bto.co.uk

Dog Bites!

 Michael Collins, Associate and Solicitor Advocate  Rhona McKerracher, Senior Solicitor

26 September 2019

SLIDE 7

www.bto.co.uk

Topics

 Who can be liable from the civil perspective?  Case Law  Measures to protect your business

SLIDE 8

www.bto.co.uk

Dog Bites!

 Who gets the blame?

SLIDE 9

www.bto.co.uk

Liability of the dog’s owner / keeper

 Common law liability?  Duty of care  Breach of duty: negligence, foreseeability

SLIDE 10

www.bto.co.uk

Strict Liability

 Liability without proof of negligence – the bite itself

is enough

 Animals (Scotland) Act 1987  Creates strict liability for injury or damage caused

by animals in certain circumstances

 Liability attaches to the “keeper of the animal”

SLIDE 11

www.bto.co.uk

The keeper



Who is the keeper?



Person who “owns the animal or has possession of it” at the time of the incident



Person who has “actual care and control of a child under the age of 16 who owns the animal or has possession of it”



Person who owns or has possession will, if the animal has been abandoned or escaped, still be deemed to have possession and therefore be keeper until another person acquires ownership or comes into possession



Exception for certain type of possession:



Possession only by reason of detaining animal which has stayed onto their land

SLIDE 12

www.bto.co.uk

When is the keeper liable under the Animals (Scotland) Act?

 Complicated(?) legal provisions in the Act:

 “The animal belongs to a species whose members are

by virtue of their physical attributes or habits likely (unless controlled or restrained) to injure severely or kill persons or animals, or damage property to a material extent; and

 “the injury or damage complained of is directly referable

to such physical attributes or habits”

SLIDE 13

www.bto.co.uk

Simplifying matters



Dog bites:



Covered by “deeming provisions”, i.e. they are deemed to be likely to inure severely etc by

 Biting  Savaging  Attacking  Harrying



In short: in dog bite cases the keeper is liable under the Act, with no need to prove any negligence on their part.

SLIDE 14

www.bto.co.uk

Defences



Full defence



The person sustaining injury “was not authorised (expressly

r by implication) or entitled to be on that land”

 Trespass – doesn’t provide a defence against claims by

legitimate visitors / tradesmen

 Even if the visitor was “unauthorised”, injury by a guard dog

will result in liability unless there was strict adherence to the Guard Dogs Act 1975



The person sustaining the injury “willingly accepted the risk”

 Difficult to establish  Doesn’t normally apply where person runs the risk in the

course of their employment



The accident was “due wholly to the fault” of the injured person

SLIDE 15

www.bto.co.uk

Defences

 Contributory Negligence

 % deduction to the claim on the basis the injured

person by their own negligence contributed to their injury

SLIDE 16

www.bto.co.uk

Viable recovery target?

 Pet insurance?  Funds to pay an award of damages?

SLIDE 17

www.bto.co.uk

Viable recovery target?

SLIDE 18

www.bto.co.uk

Viable recovery target?

 The employer!

SLIDE 19

www.bto.co.uk

Liability of the employer?

 Duty of Care

 Risk Assessment  Training  Safety Equipment  Warnings

SLIDE 20

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Claimant was a snooker and pool table repairer  Sent by his employer to a domestic premises to

re-felt a pool table

SLIDE 21

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Claimant became aware of (illegal) dogs on the

premises whilst on the property

 Claimant required to go through a gated patio

area where the dogs were in order to go back to his van to retrieve work tools

 The owner opened the gate, which allowed the

dog to rush through and attack the claimant

 Employer knew about ‘some dogs’ on the property

SLIDE 22

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Breach of duty established

 Due to his knowledge, the employer should have

made enquiries about the temperament of the dogs

 If told that they were potentially aggressive, the

employer should have instructed the owner to secure them away

SLIDE 23

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Breach of duty established (cont.)

 Employer should have told the claimant about the

presence of the dogs and told him that he could insist that the dogs be locked away

 Breach of duty was causative

 Had the employer either insisted to the owner that

the dogs be locked up, or told the claimant he could do so, the attack would not have happened.

SLIDE 24

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Liability established against the employer  No deduction for contributory negligence.

SLIDE 25

www.bto.co.uk

Camden v Jackpot Leisure Limited, [2015] 7 WLUK 421

 Case turns on its own facts and circumstances  Knowledge of the employer was key

SLIDE 26

www.bto.co.uk

Would the case be followed in Scotland?

SLIDE 27

www.bto.co.uk

Kennedy v Cordia, [2016] UKSC 6

 Claimant was a care worker  Visiting a terminally ill housebound patient  Slipped on snow and ice on a pathway leading to

the patient’s wrist

 Expert considered that Cordia had not adequately

assessed the risk, nor had the provided her with the correct work equipment

SLIDE 28

www.bto.co.uk

Kennedy v Cordia, [2016] UKSC 6

 Supreme Court found that:

 It was wrong to compare Ms Kennedy to an

rdinary member of the public

 Ms Kennedy, as part of her employment, had to

travel on the untreated footpath in order to reach the patients’ door

 A reasonably prudent employer would have carried

ut a risk assessment

 Evidence that the PPE, if provided, would have

been used and therefore the failure to provide PPE was causative

SLIDE 29

www.bto.co.uk

Hill v Lovett

 Vet receptionist given permission to enter a

private garden belonging to her employer for the purposes of cleaning the surgery’s windows

 Whilst then, bitten on the leg by one of two dogs,

who belonged to her employer

 Sued at common law and under Occupiers’

Liability (Scotland) Act 1960

 Dogs were known to be by the owners to be

territorial over the garden

SLIDE 30

www.bto.co.uk

Practical measures to protect your business from the case law

 Enquire whether dogs are on the premises, what

kind of dogs they are and their general temperament

 Keep your employee informed  Inform the customer that the dog should be locked

away

 Train (and re-train!) your staff on what to do if

confronted with an aggressive dog

 PPE

SLIDE 31

www.bto.co.uk

Dog Bites!