Laws v. Wright et al., (2000) 257 A.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: McBain, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 1999
• Citations: (2000), 257 A.R. 1 (QB)

Laws v. Wright (2000), 257 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. FE.096

Jane Laws (plaintiff) v. Gillian Wright and Fritz Baehre and Gisela Baehre operating under the trade name Trakehner Glen and Linda Howard (defendants)

(Action No. 9801-06992)

Indexed As: Laws v. Wright et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McBain, J.

January 31, 2000.

Summary:

Howard's horse bit the plaintiff's thumb. The plaintiff sued the stable owners under the Occupiers' Liability Act, under the doc­trine of scienter and for negli­gence. She also sued Howard and the stable manager in negligence and under the doc­trine of scienter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the plaintiff's action.

Torts - Topic 251

Negligence - Animals - Duty of possessor of domestic animals - Laws' horse was boarded in a stall next to Howard's horse Salish - Salish bit Laws' thumb when Laws was feeding her a carrot - Laws, an ex­peri­enced, mature horsewoman, was warned and knew that Salish was a tem­peramental, aggressive and dangerous horse and to be careful around her - Howard had told Laws that it was not a good idea to feed Salish - Laws knew that the stable did not allow people to feed other people's horses - Laws sued Howard, the stable owners and the stable manager for, inter alia, negligence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - Although the defendants owed Laws a duty of care, the biting was not reasonably foreseeable - It was not rea­sonably foreseeable that Laws would be feeding another boarder's horse when it was strictly forbidden and knowing that she was at risk of being nipped or bitten - Further, Laws voluntarily assumed the risk - See paragraphs 104 to 123.

Torts - Topic 256

Negligence - Animals - Foreseeability - [See Torts - Topic 251 ].

Torts - Topic 264

Negligence - Animals - Dangerous - Knowledge of - Liability of owner - Laws' horse was boarded in a stall next to Howard's horse Salish - Salish bit Laws' thumb when Laws was feeding her a carrot - Laws sued Howard, the stable owners and the stable manager under the doctrine of scienter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The defen­dants knew that Salish was a dangerous horse and knew it had a propensity for nipping - The court held that nipping was an adequate forewarning of biting - Therefore, the defendants were aware of Salish's propensity to bite - However, Laws, an experienced, mature horse­woman, was aware of Salish's propensity and the risk involved in hand feeding a horse - Laws voluntarily assumed the risk - See paragraphs 89 to 103.

Torts - Topic 2106

Strict liability - Dangerous things or ac­tivities - Keeping animals - General - [See Torts - Topic 264 ].

Torts - Topic 3505

Occupiers' liability or negligence for dan­gerous premises - General principles - Duty of occupier - To visitor - Laws' horse was boarded in a stall next to Howard's horse Salish - Salish bit Laws' thumb when Laws was feeding her a carrot - Laws, an experienced, mature horse­woman, was warned and knew that Salish was a temperamental, aggressive and dan­gerous horse and to be careful around her -Howard had told Laws that it was not a good idea to feed Salish - Laws knew that the stable did not allow people to feed other people's horses - Laws sued the stable owners under the Occupiers' Liabil­ity Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - By feeding Salish, Laws was not using the premises for the purposes for which she was per­mitted - Therefore, there was no duty on the owners to see that she was reasonably safe from the danger or consequences of feeding another boarder's horse - Further, Laws voluntarily assumed the risk - See paragraphs 75 to 88.

Torts - Topic 3506

Occupiers' liability or negligence for dan­gerous premises - General principles - Duty of occupier - Warning of danger - [See Torts - Topic 3505 ].

Torts - Topic 3575

Occupiers' liability or negligence for dan­gerous premises - Negligence of occupier -Animals - [See Torts - Topic 3505 ].

Torts - Topic 6738

Defences - Consent - Assumption of risk - Implied consent - Dangerous animals - [See Torts - Topic 251 , Torts - Topic 264 and Torts - Topic 3505 ].

Cases Noticed:

Slaferek v. TCG International Inc. (1997), 207 A.R. 113 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 79].

Epp v. Ridgetop Builders Ltd. and Norris (1978), 15 A.R. 120; 8 Alta. L.R.(2d) 195 (T.D.), consd. [para. 81].

Acheson v. Dory (1993), 138 A.R. 241; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 128 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 91].

Bennet v. Morgan (1993) 138 A.R. 75 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 92].

Gulash v. Meier (1997), 207 A.R. 202 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 92].

Fisher v. Liptak, [1996] A.J. No. 30, refd to. [para. 92].

Gill v. MacDonald et al. (1977), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 438; 33 A.P.R. 438; 80 D.L.R. 21 (P.E.I.S.C.), consd. [para. 95].

Bates v. Horkoff et al. (1991), 119 A.R. 270 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 105].

Lee et al v. Walkers (1939), 162 L.T. 89, refd to. [para. 107].

Nasser v. Rumford and Rumford (1977), 7 A.R. 459; 4 C.C.L.T. 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Montreal Stockyards Co. v. Poulin, [1941] 3 D.L.R. 646 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Hall v. Sorley (1980), 23 B.C.L.R. 281 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 120].

Statutes Noticed:

Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. O-3, sect. 1(a), sect. 1(b), sect. 1(c), sect. 1(e) [para. 75]; sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 9, sect. 15(1) [para. 77].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada (1989), vol. 1, pp. 211, 212 [para. 89].

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 117 [para. 98].

Webster's Third New International Dic­tionary, p. 1529 [para. 97].

Counsel:

Blaine G. Schumacher, for the plaintiff;

Chris Simard, for the defendant, Howard;

Daniel A. Downe, for the defendants, Wright, Fritz Baehre and Gisela Baehre.

This action was heard on November 29, 1999, by McBain, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on January 31, 2000.