No, I don't think the CICA would cover it. Has to be a crime of violence... eh oop, this is interesting!
C (CICA: Liability: 2002), Re C was kicked by one of four horses that had strayed from an area of common land towards houses. The horses were untethered, without a chain or rope or any other means of restraint, including a bridle or headgear. The local residents were aware of the straying of the horses. In the instant incident, the horses had strayed after being frightened by the noise of motor cycles pbutting nearby. C, who was four and a half years old at the time had been playing with friends near the houses. At the horses coming towards them, the children had become excited and went to befriend them. C was kicked in the face, being rendered unconscious for a period of five minutes. C was taken to hospital and treated for a fracture to the zygomatic process. Held, granting an award to C, that the criteria of recklessness under the principles initiated in R. v Caldwell (James) 1982 A.C. 341 and R. v Cunningham (Roy) 1957 2 Q.B. 396 had been proved in the instant case. The horses had been caused, permitted or allowed to roam freely upon common land that had no boundary fence and no unbroken shrubbery or hedge to act as a boundary and notwithstanding that there had been almost 200 previous incidents of horses straying onto the highway. The horses were neither tethered nor secured in any way. The panel found that this was criminal recklessness and that the horse had behaved in a manner that was a well known characteristic in this species that when panicked or frightened they would kick. Therefore the panel decided that a horse on a public highway, kicking at an innocent victim was a crime of violence.
Not quite the same thing but perhaps the CICA could be persuaded that an animal that runs in front of your car is the same sort of event as an animal that kicks you.
