Lowery v Walker

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was injured by a horse owned by the Defendant. The animal, known by the Defendant to possess “savage propensities,” had been left loose in a field that members of the public, including the Plaintiff, habitually used as a shortcut. A county court judge found that this public use occurred with the Defendant’s knowledge and without any steps taken to prevent it or to warn of the animal’s danger. The judge held the Defendant liable in negligence. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed that decision. The present opinion comes from the House of Lords, which reviewed the county court’s factual findings and the intermediate court’s legal conclusions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was lawfully present in the field (as a licensee) or a trespasser, and how that status affected the Defendant’s duty of care.
2. Whether a landowner who knows that the public habitually crosses his land owes a duty to protect those persons from a dangerous animal kept there.
3. Whether a trial judge may clarify ambiguous language in his judgment after it has been pronounced.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House of Lords placed decisive weight on the county court judge’s findings, holding that appellate courts are bound by those factual determinations. The Lords accepted the judge’s subsequent written clarification that the Plaintiff was not a trespasser in the strict legal sense; rather, he was one of the public who habitually used the field with the Defendant’s acquiescence. On that basis, the Court reasoned as follows:

• The Defendant knew both that the field was regularly crossed by the public and that the horse was dangerous.
• By acquiescing in the public's continued use of the land, the Defendant effectively permitted entry and therefore owed those users a duty of reasonable care.
• Allowing a known dangerous animal to roam freely in such circumstances, without warning or safeguards, constituted negligence.
• The county court judge’s post-judgment clarification was permissible because it merely explained the sense in which an ambiguous term (“trespasser”) had been used; it did not alter the substance of the findings.

Because these factual conclusions resolved the dispute, the Lords expressly declined to address broader questions concerning the duty owed to mere trespassers.

Holding and Implications

Appeal ALLOWED; the judgment of the intermediate appellate court is reversed and the county court’s finding of liability is restored.

The immediate effect is that the Defendant is liable in negligence for the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court intentionally limited its decision to situations where a landowner knowingly acquiesces in public use of land; it set no new precedent on duties owed to true trespassers.