ANIMALS

Domestic animal - Liability of owner

In the case of Periasamy v Suppiah [1967] 1 MLJ 19, the High Court of Raub held that an owner of a domestic animal is liable for any damage caused by the animal, even if the owner was not negligent. In this case, the defendant's buffaloes escaped from his land and damaged the plaintiff's crops. The defendant argued that he was not liable for the damage because he had not been negligent. However, the court held that the defendant was still liable because he was the owner of the animals and therefore had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent them from causing damage.

Duty of care - Domestic animal - Liability for death of buffaloes

In the case of Jaswant Singh v Central Electricity Board & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 272, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur held that the Central Electricity Board (CEB) was liable for the death of two buffaloes that were electrocuted by a high voltage power line. In this case, the buffaloes were grazing in a field that was adjacent to a CEB power line. The power line was not properly insulated, and the buffaloes were electrocuted when they came into contact with it. The CEB argued that it was not liable for the death of the buffaloes because it had not been negligent. However, the court held that the CEB owed a duty of care to the buffaloes, and that it had breached that duty by failing to properly insulate the power line.

Infection - Declaring state to be infected area

In the case of PP v Yeow Fah Cheong & Anor [1971] 1 MLJ 41, the High Court of Alor Star held that the state government could declare a state to be an infected area if there was a risk of an animal disease spreading. In this case, the state government had declared the state of Kedah to be an infected area due to an outbreak of rinderpest. The defendants, who were cattle farmers, challenged the declaration on the grounds that it was unlawful. However, the court held that the declaration was lawful because it was necessary to prevent the spread of the disease.

These cases show that the law in Malaysia takes the issue of animal liability seriously. Owners of domestic animals have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing damage, and the government has the power to declare an area to be an infected area if there is a risk of an animal disease spreading.

















































Domestic animal - Liability of owner

In the case of Periasamy v Suppiah [1967] 1 MLJ 19, the High Court of Raub held that an owner of a domestic animal is liable for any damage caused by the animal, even if the owner was not negligent. In this case, the defendant's buffaloes escaped from his land and damaged the plaintiff's crops. The defendant argued that he was not liable for the damage because he had not been negligent. However, the court held that the defendant was still liable because he was the owner of the animals and therefore had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent them from causing damage.

Duty of care - Domestic animal - Liability for death of buffaloes

In the case of Jaswant Singh v Central Electricity Board & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 272, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur held that the Central Electricity Board (CEB) was liable for the death of two buffaloes that were electrocuted by a high voltage power line. In this case, the buffaloes were grazing in a field that was adjacent to a CEB power line. The power line was not properly insulated, and the buffaloes were electrocuted when they came into contact with it. The CEB argued that it was not liable for the death of the buffaloes because it had not been negligent. However, the court held that the CEB owed a duty of care to the buffaloes, and that it had breached that duty by failing to properly insulate the power line.

Infection - Declaring state to be infected area

In the case of PP v Yeow Fah Cheong & Anor [1971] 1 MLJ 41, the High Court of Alor Star held that the state government could declare a state to be an infected area if there was a risk of an animal disease spreading. In this case, the state government had declared the state of Kedah to be an infected area due to an outbreak of rinderpest. The defendants, who were cattle farmers, challenged the declaration on the grounds that it was unlawful. However, the court held that the declaration was lawful because it was necessary to prevent the spread of the disease.

These cases show that the law in Malaysia takes the issue of animal liability seriously. Owners of domestic animals have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing damage, and the government has the power to declare an area to be an infected area if there is a risk of an animal disease spreading