Legal Case Summary
Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10
Tort law – Negligence – Liability of owner
Facts
The defendant was the owner of a savage horse which he knew had the potential to cause damage to other individuals and without warning; he placed into a field to graze, knowing that members of the public cross on their path to a local railway station. The plaintiff crossed the field that contained the horse and was attacked, bitten and stamped on by the horse. The plaintiff sued for damages by way of the injury. The trial judge found the defendant to be negligent for creating this danger and found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered damages. The decision was appealed on the basis that the land had been used as a shortcut for many years, as well as those buying milk from the defendant, who had not taken any steps to remedy the trespass.
Issues
The key legal issue in this instance was whether the defendant was liable to the trespasser for the injury that was caused. It was important to weigh whether the claimant had a right to be on the property. The defendant had not taken action to prevent people from crossing the land previously, particularly as some were customers who purchased milk from him.
Decision / Outcome
The defendant was liable to the claimant in this instance. The court held that whilst the plaintiff did not have express permission to use or cross the defendant’s land, a licence to be on the land could be implied from the repeated trespass which had occurred and the acquiescence of the defendant to this.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the historical decision in Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10. The case is still cited as an authority for the principle that a licence to enter land can be implied from repeated trespass coupled with the landowner’s acquiescence, and it continues to appear in standard tort law texts.
Students should be aware, however, that the legal landscape governing occupiers’ liability to trespassers has developed significantly since 1911. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 codified the duty owed to lawful visitors, and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 subsequently introduced a limited statutory duty of care owed to trespassers. The 1984 Act is now the primary framework governing situations of this kind, and courts approach the question of liability to trespassers primarily through that statutory lens rather than solely through the implied licence doctrine illustrated in this case. The doctrine of implied licence has not been abolished but its practical importance in this context has diminished. Additionally, liability for animals is now largely governed by the Animals Act 1971, which replaced the common law scienter action. The article does not address these later developments, so readers should treat it as illustrating a foundational common law principle rather than as a complete statement of current law.
