Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
There is a counter-intuitive argument here, which the hon. Lady raised from the wrong perspective, and that is that strict liability is clear, and if it is removed and replaced by a return to the common-law test of negligence—I am not sure whether the Bill achieves that, but we may come to that later—there will be more litigation because the law will be less clear because it will be reliant on discussions on the law of negligence and whether liability attaches. Strict liability is clear, negligence is not, so more case will go to court and more money will go to lawyers and less to victims.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c521
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Animals Damage Liability Horse riding Insurance Horses Rural areas Urban areas
- Legislation
- Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:50:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312