Prize-winning dog trainer loses personal injury claim arising from bite by aggressive dog during assessment

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC EDIN 60
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff C A Walls

Barry Heskin, a breeder of German Shepherds who had previously supplied dogs for the police, raised a claim against John Reynolds and Sharee MacKerron after their dog Mac caused injuries requiring him to undergo surgery on his right hand. The defenders accepted that they would be liable for the injuries but argued that they had a defence under section 2(1)(b) of the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987.

The case was heard in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court by Sheriff Charles Walls. Hovie, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Buchanan, advocate, for the defenders.

Advised to euthanise

In September 2020 the defenders jointly purchased Mac, a male full breed working Collie. From around 2020 they began to experience problems with aggressive behaviour and engaged a dog trainer and a behaviouralist to address Mac’s issues. On 15 April 2021 they had a telephone consultation with a specialist vet who advised them to euthanise Mac. Neighbours of the defenders who also owned an aggressive Collie told them that the pursuer had helped turn their dog’s behaviour around, and a meeting was set up for 26 August 2021.

The pursuer and the first defender met at a field in Aberlady for the purpose of assessing Mac’s ability to be trainer. During this meeting, Mac bit the pursuer while he was fitting him with a slip lead, and then a second time after a short walk. When the pursuer went to get a second slip lead from his vehicle to allow him and the first defender to walk Mac together, Mac jumped at his face. The pursuer lifted his right hand to protect himself and was badly bitten a third time. As a result of that bite, the pursuer suffered injuries requiring hospital treatment including surgery to the dorsum of his right hand and was left with permanent scarring and residual finger stiffness.

The pursuer’s case was that key information, including that Mac’s original collar and chain should not be removed and that he could not be trusted around the defenders’ grandson, had not been shared with him, and thus there was a critical lack of symmetry between the knowledge of Mac’s keepers and what he had been told. Had the pursuer been given this information, he would not have agreed to meet Mac.

For the defenders it was submitted that the pursuer’s own evidence was that he had accepted the risk of biting and thus a defence under section 2(1)(b) of the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 was established. The incident was wholly the fault of the pursuer, who had not discussed changing Mac’s lead in advance with the defenders, and on the defenders’ account the biting was caused by the pursuer’s mistreatment of their dog.

Conscious and informed decision

In his decision, Sheriff Walls noted that he did not require to resolve the difference in the parties’ accounts to resolve the case, saying: “Looking at the evidence, I conclude that the facts relevant to the matters I need to decide are as follows. The pursuer realised he could not assess Mac on his collar and chain and wanted to use a slip lead. Some force was used by him in restraining Mac while the first defender removed Mac’s collar. A slip lead was then placed on Mac and as this was done, Mac bit the first defender. The pursuer then walked Mac up the field and exercised a degree of control over him. When Mac and the pursuer returned, the pursuer wanted to use a method involving a second slip lead. He gave the first defender bite gloves to protect his hands. Mac bit the first defender again. As the pursuer went to obtain a second slip lead, Mac bit the pursuer.”

He added on the statutory defence: “The exception from liability in section 2(1)(b) must be interpreted against the very general liability imposed by section 1. The pursuer’s argument that to voluntarily assume the risk of being bitten by Mac he would need to know the precise nature of the risk is consistent with the Animals Act 1971 and the English authorities cited by him. However, these cases proceed on the basis that the precise characteristics giving rise to a risk of injury must be identified. The pursuer has submitted he cannot have voluntarily assumed a risk of injury unless there was ‘symmetry’ between the defenders’ knowledge of Mac’s trigger points and the information shared with him.”

Considering what the pursuer did know, Sheriff Walls said: “The pursuer knew that Mac was an aggressive dog with a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ personality. He knew that he had bitten his owners and that a vet had suggested he be euthanised. He also knew that the defenders had approached him as a last resort, such were the problems they were having with Mac. He had seen video footage of Mac being aggressive and photographs of bite wounds inflicted by him. The pursuer accepted in his evidence that he knew that Mac might attempt to bite him. He had been bitten many times by dogs, was unfazed by being bitten and carried TCP in his vehicle to treat bite wounds. He had trained dogs which he knew to be aggressive. Taken together, these facts demonstrate not just that the pursuer was aware of the risk, but that he made a conscious and informed decision to proceed notwithstanding the risk.”

He concluded: “The pursuer had very high confidence in his abilities as a dog trainer. He agreed to train the defenders’ neighbour’s dog, Pip who he said had tried to bite his face. He had no concerns about being bitten. Accordingly, there is an inconsistency in the pursuer’s evidence, and my impression is that he overstated the impact that these factors would have had on his decision whether to meet Mac or not. In any event, while he may have chosen for personal or professional reasons not to train or assess a dog such as Mac, I am satisfied that any such decision was separate from the assumption of risk. Again, even if I am wrong on this, having seen Mac bite the first defender, the pursuer could have simply brought the session to an end.”

Sheriff Walls therefore found that the defenders had no liability to the pursuer per section 2(1)(b) of the 1987 Act and assoilzied them from the pursuer’s craves.