Monday, September 14th, 2026
Barry Heskin v John Reynolds and Sharee Mackerron [2026] SC EDIN 60
Sheriff C Walls has issued his judgment in Barry Heskin v John Reynolds and Sharee Mackerron following a proof in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court.
The pursuer, an experienced dog trainer, sought damages after being bitten by the defenders' dog while assessing whether it was capable of being trained. Prior to the assessment, the defenders had obtained behavioural and specialist veterinary advice regarding their dog's aggressive behaviour, including advice that euthanasia should be considered. The pursuer relied on the strict liability provisions of the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987, arguing that the defenders had failed to provide him with material information about their dog's behavioural history and the extent of risk it presented.
The court considered whether the defenders were exempt from liability under section 2(1)(b) of the 1987 Act on the basis that the pursuer had willingly accepted the risk of injury. In doing so, Sheriff Walls examined the proper interpretation of that provision, including the relevance of English authorities decided under the Animals Act 1971.
The court held that the pursuer, as an experienced dog trainer who knew the dog was aggressive, had willingly accepted that risk. The defenders were therefore exempt from liability under section 2(1)(b). Sheriff Walls also held that the defenders were not in breach of any common law duty of care. The defenders were assoilzied from the craves of the initial writ. Iain Buchanan appeared for the defenders.
The judgment can be found here.
