Cummings v Granger
[1977] QB 397; [1976] 3 WLR 842;
[1977] 1 All ER 104; (1958) 102 SJ 453;
NEGLIGENCE, DOG, ANIMAL ATTACK, EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISK, OCCUPERS’ LIABILITY, LIABILITY OF KEEPER FOR INJURY TO TRESSPASSER, VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE OF RISK, DEFENCE FROM LIABILITY
Facts
The defendant was the occupier of a breaker’s yard. At night, the yard was locked and the defendant’s untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in order to deter intruders. One night, a defendant’s associate who had a key for the door and the plaintiff entered the yard. The plaintiff knew about the presence of the dog. The dog attacked the plaintiff causing her serious injury. On the evidence, it was established that the dog’s behaviour was normal for an untrained Alsatian dog with a territory to defend. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages on grounds of breach the duty contained in s. 2(2) Animals Act 1971. The trial judge found that the defendant was liable under s. 2(2) Animals Act 1971 and none of the exceptions in s. 5 Animals Act 1971 applied, but the plaintiff was 50 per cent to blame for the injuries. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Within the meaning of s. 5(3)(b) Animals Act 1971, is it unreasonable to allow a guard dog to roam freely on a closed premises in order to deter intruders?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was allowed.
(1) It is not unreasonable to turn loose a guard dog in closed premises in order to deter intruders within the meaning of s. 5(3)(b) Animals Act 1971.
(2) As the plaintiff knew about the dog, she had voluntarily accepted the risk, which absolved the defendant of liability under s. 2(2) Animals Act 1971 by virtue of s. 5(3)(b) Animals Act 1971.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. Cummings v Granger [1977] QB 397 is still good law and continues to be cited as authority on the interaction between s. 2(2) and s. 5(2)–(3) of the Animals Act 1971 in relation to guard dogs and the voluntary assumption of risk defence.
One point of note: the Guard Dogs Act 1975, which was already in force at the time of the decision, was considered by the Court of Appeal. The court held that, although the defendant may have been in breach of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 (which requires a handler to be present with a guard dog, or the dog to be secured), that statutory breach did not automatically negate the s. 5(2) or s. 5(3) defences under the Animals Act 1971. Readers should be aware that operating a guard dog in breach of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 remains a criminal offence, and while it did not affect the civil outcome in this case, it could be relevant context in similar fact situations. The Animals Act 1971 and the Guard Dogs Act 1975 both remain in force without material amendment relevant to the principles discussed.
