Compose a 1500 words essay on Legal Environment. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... One of these three horses reached to the place where accident took place. The exact

Compose a 1500 words essay on Legal Environment. Needs to be plagiarism free!

One of these three horses reached to the place where accident took place. The exact reason for this sudden behavior of horses was not established but this kind of behavior is generally found when the animal is frightened due to some reasons.

Mr. Cleese, the plaintiff, brought the case against Andrew and Susan Findlay, in the Exeter County Court, claiming that the accident occurred due to their negligence and under section 2 of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1971. the defendants were totally liable for the accident. The judge, sitting in the Exeter County Court, rejected his both the claims. The Court of Appeal accepted the claim that though it was not defendant's fault, under section 2 of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1971, they were liable for damage.

The appeal of defendants highlighted the complexity and opacity of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1971, which fixes the liability for damage caused by an animal. Section 2(2) of the act fixes the liability for damage caused when the animal's behaviour in the circumstances was in no way abnormal for an animal of the species in those circumstances.

(b) the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances. and

(c) those characteristics were known to that keeper ..."

The non-clear tone of this section, especially subsection (b) has led to different interpretation at different courts of law. Subsection (a) and (c) are clearly understood but subsection (b) present two cases, first one is that the owner of animal is totally liable if "the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species" and the other one is the owner of animal is totally liable if "the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances".

The first case considers the animal where the species of the animal is, in general, docile but the particular animal that caused the damaged was abnormal and the second case considers the animals that are generally docile but the action that caused damage is outcome of their abnormal behaviour found at a particular time or in particular circumstances.

3. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation do you consider that Lord Nicholls employed in the case Give reasons for your answer.