Farmer charged after bull kills walker

[Animal Mother]

I think it depends somewhat on whether the footpath was fenced off maybe even by an electric fence ?

Agree from WIMBERLEYS post that the law is the law but do feel for the farmer if this was an accident i.e. he did not know Wimberelys Law - I have to say I didnt but then I'm not a farmer.

I have a great deal of sympathy that footpaths have been used for decades and it seems only recently that fatalities have occurred. I have posted recently strongly in the farmers favour over use of footpaths - it seems that was wishful thinking - heaven help the farmer as he will have 2 potential guilty verdicts; the one he feels himself and the one the CPS will seek to impose.

If you walk footpaths in farmland surely you should expect this ? Next cows will be banned from fields with definitive footpaths across them:

 

I agree though Limousins are deadly.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. As a farmer it is his duty to know the laws, regulations and acts he is subject to.

 

Expect what? Death? No.

Expect what? Bulls? Well, I'm sure only about 50% of people could identify a bull from a cow at a distance when eentering a field.

[pegasus bridge]

Bit more info here. Just reaffirming my cow & bull phobia after being chased by a dairy herd.

http://m.farmersguardian.com/57796.article?mobilesite=enabled

[CharlieT]

No, you should not have to check to see if there is a dangerous animal in a field with a public footpath. As this farmer has found out, it is illegal to have a dangerous bull in a field with a public footpath.

 

A public footpath is just that, a footpath on which the public has a lawful right to pass and repass without hindrance or danger.

 

 

I think it depends somewhat on whether the footpath was fenced off maybe even by an electric fence ?

Agree from WIMBERLEYS post that the law is the law but do feel for the farmer if this was an accident i.e. he did not know Wimberelys Law - I have to say I didnt but then I'm not a farmer.

I have a great deal of sympathy that footpaths have been used for decades and it seems only recently that fatalities have occurred. I have posted recently strongly in the farmers favour over use of footpaths - it seems that was wishful thinking - heaven help the farmer as he will have 2 potential guilty verdicts; the one he feels himself and the one the CPS will seek to impose.

If you walk footpaths in farmland surely you should expect this ? Next cows will be banned from fields with definitive footpaths across them:

 

I agree though Limousins are deadly.

Charlie, I think the highway definition (rights of way are highways) is "without let or hindrance", walking on a highway is or can be quite dangerous !

 

The without hindrance or danger were my words and not a quote from law. I was merely using that term to simplify the terms the act uses such as obstructions, animals, pesticides, broken stiles and so forth.

 

Public footpaths across farmland are not highways but rights of way, the public only has the right to pass and repass and the landowner has a legal obligation to ensure that, to use my words, the public can use the footpath without hindrance or danger.

 

There are many "rules" and obligations concerning public footpaths (PROW) across farmland, all of which every farmer will be aware. These range, as in this case, from the keeping of dangerous livestock in the field, through to the rules for cross compliance, which if not adhered to carry severe financial penalties.

 

I can assure you that every farmer will know the law.

[harpoonlouis]

I remember this one as it is about half a mile from where the same path runs through the field where my horses graze.

 

The farmer in question is very well respected around here and certainly wouldn't fall into the reckless or unfriendly to walker stereotype.

 

Now the law has to take it's course and I hope a sensible outcome prevails. If a decent farmer like this one is unreasdonably punished I will be very sad.

 

Nobody should be needlessly harmed on a walk in the countryside but nobody can absoloutely guarantee the safety of livestock at all times either.

 

If every field where footpaths cross were to be emptied of livestock on a precautionary basis there wouldn't be many farmes left in business.

[Livefast123]

I think that the onus here lies with the farmer not to put dangerous stock in a field with a footpath but also with walkers / ramblers to exercise a bit of common sense and take responsibility for their own safety.

 

Any animal can pose a danger to humans and having grown up on a dairy farm livestock needs to be shown a lot of respect mainly because it's much bigger and heavier than us! I think with the continued invasion of the countryside by townies these instances will continue to occur as they have not got a clue how to act around animals

[kdubya]

I think that the onus here lies with the farmer not to put dangerous stock in a field with a footpath but also with walkers / ramblers to exercise a bit of common sense and take responsibility for their own safety.

 

Any animal can pose a danger to humans and having grown up on a dairy farm livestock needs to be shown a lot of respect mainly because it's much bigger and heavier than us! I think with the continued invasion of the countryside by townies these instances will continue to occur as they have not got a clue how to act around animals

so according to you you have to take bullfighting lessons before you go on a ramble, tosh in the absolute form, its like saying don't lean against a lamppost as it may be live!! as if it is and your electrocuted you should have expected it so its your fault. simple fact is bulls and the public don't mix and its the owners responsibility to keep them apart, not the ramblers duty to clue up in animal behavior.

 

KW

[-Mongrel-]

I think with the continued invasion of the countryside by townies these instances will continue to occur as they have not got a clue how to act around animals

 

Which is perhaps why it's necessary to ensure potentially dangerous animal aren't able to come in contact with the clueless?

[sitsinhedges]

IMO the CPS should most definitely prosecute. Particularly bearing in mind that the decision will have been made following an investigation by the police and the HSE.

 

Anyone who is killed whilst going about their lawful business should expect the person responsible to be prosecuted.

 

Farmers have a duty of care and an obligation to members of the public to have free and safe passage on a public footpath. To graze a bull in such a field is asking for trouble and an accident waiting to happen.

 

At last a sensible post.

[Badgerpig]

If the field wasnt flat he may not have known there was a bull in the field before it was too late, (probably the reason I was brought up to stay near the edges of fields/meadows when on farm land)

 

dont know enough facts but would depend on the facts e.g relevant warning signage? if the bull was on its own? breed etc?

 

Im guessing the facts were taken in to consideration against legislation before pursuing the prosecution?

[jasper3]

wouldn't it make more sense to re-route the footpath..say around the edge of the field with a fence..would this be possible or is it one of those stupid laws that can't be changed , ?

[Gordon R]

jasper3 - an excellent suggestion which should suit almost anyone, but the real zealots. Sadly, Rights of Way aren't easily changed.

[harpoonlouis]

"To graze a bull in such a field is asking for trouble and an accident waiting to happen"

 

So where do you graze cows and bullocks, all of which have killed farmers and walkers over the years?

 

Would I guarantee my horses weren't capable of killing me? Er, no.

 

Crossing the road isn't risk free nor is crossing a field of stock.

 

So why are walkers absolved of all responsibility? Do they have a right to cross roads on their weekend rambles risk free by demanding that all traffic leaves the road in case they want to walk across?

 

Risk is always managed because it can't always be eliminated. So the decision is where you want to push it to and and are you prepared to deal with the consequences of your decision.

 

With nearly 3000 people killed on the roads each year are you proposing banning all but essential travel?

 

If you want welfare food and good conditions for animals presumably you expect them to see green grass once in a while or should they all be couped up so the bobbily hat brigade can come to the "countryside" and enjoy staring at empty fields of overgrown weeds at the weekends?

 

On this occasion a bull was involved but it wasn't the fatal factor, mixing small weedy humans with big livestock is going to result in casualties sometime, ask any farmer.

 

On that farm that herd had been grazed on that field for at least three generations and the only thing different on that day was fate. They are back on it this afternoon and I for one wouldn't have a problem walking through it but I would expect to take responsibility for my actions and wouldn't expect a guarantee from the Waterfall family.

[al4x]

wouldn't it make more sense to re-route the footpath..say around the edge of the field with a fence..would this be possible or is it one of those stupid laws that can't be changed , ?

 

 

ahh that gets the freedom walkers up in arms any suggestion, we had a hell of a job with a byway getting it so it could be stopped for 4 wheeled traffic. That was due to ****** using it as the only way into the farm for both coursing and theft and general vandalism.

 

If you go by Kudubyas thinking you wouldn't graze any animals in fields round here as very few have no access, anything from cows with calves to heffers can cause problems but bulls are the obvious issue. Even sheep will occasionally attack children and remove their teeth while headbutting them. Generally being sensible helps but if only you could route paths and fence them as everybody would know where they stand

[Gordon R]

harpoonlouis - thankfully the law protects the public from people who agree with you.

I trust you have offered to appear as Defence Brief for the farmer. Throw in this priceless gem and the Judge will probably dismiss the case before lunch.

should they all be couped up so the bobbily hat brigade can come to the "countryside" and enjoy staring at empty fields of overgrown weeds at the weekends?

 

 

Then again, perhaps not.

[CharlieT]

harpoonlouis - thankfully the law protects the public from people who agree with you.

 

I trust you have offered to appear as Defence Brief for the farmer. Throw in this priceless gem and the Judge will probably dismiss the case before lunch.

 

Then again, perhaps not.

 

 

 

Thank you Gordon. You've just saved me typing a similar reply.

 

I can't get my head round some of the gibberish spouted by some on here who just don't understand the law or simply refuse to look it up or understand exactly what responsibilities a landowner has to those using a public footpath. Some of the replies simply beggar belief.

[markreed]

Should it have been muzzled

[Kes]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. As a farmer it is his duty to know the laws, regulations and acts he is subject to.

 

Expect what? Death? No.

Expect what? Bulls? Well, I'm sure only about 50% of people could identify a bull from a cow at a distance when eentering a field.

For an anti -allegedly, you are rather forthright. If only 50% of walkers can see and identify the male of this species I am sure we will all die out in a few decades. Your presence on pigeon watch is making the previously enjoyable experience one I will take less frequently after reading some of your posts.

[Gordon R]

Animal Mother is a star - I look forward to his postings - just not for the common-sense or maturity of judgement.

[harpoonlouis]

Gordon and Charlie, I know the law and the size of the insurance premiums I pay in regards to land that I own over which pass a lot of people.

 

Last time I looked this was a forum not a court of law so what I expressed was an opinion and a feeling of exasperation not how I deal with the public or how I brief my staff to "claim proof" our enterprises.

 

Perhaps you haven't had the joy of being subjected to a few vexatious claims by members of the public and their delightful "claims management" companies? Deep joy to you if you do.

 

Nobody wishes ill on innocent members of the public or is indifferent even to injury by those with a high level of culpability in their own injury but to believe that "the law" is so refined as to be infallible is just naive beyond belief. Once you are on the defending end of a case perhaps you won't be quite so accommodating and you perhaps won't be so keen to be left holding all the liability. Three claims and pushed back hard on all of them, two completely defeated and one settled on a much reduced basis when claimant was shown to have been highly culpable. If you just roll over and pay up you will become un-insurable and you will be out of business while they spend your money on a new kitchen or a big holiday. Sounds like I am a bit sore? You bet.

Edited August 9, 2013 by harpoonlouis

[Gordon R]

harpoonlouis - I am not disputing you may have been on the wrong end of a claim, but to generalise (in derogatory terms )about all walkers makes you appear less than sensible.

 

It also puts you on the back foot when defending claims. Any barrister would love you to repeat your views in a witness box. At that point they would just sit down and await the verdict - in their favour.

[CharlieT]

harpoonlouis

 

You opened your post #37 with....

 

"To graze a bull in such a field is asking for trouble and an accident waiting to happen"

So where do you graze cows and bullocks, all of which have killed farmers and walkers over the years?

 

The quote from an earlier post of mine and your comment regarding grazing cows and bullocks was nothing more than a cheap jibe.

 

You may have missed the gist of this topic but to clarify, it relates to the case of a bull killing someone who was lawfully walking a public footpath. Had you read my comment you were so quick to quote, you would have seen that I used the word bull. Not cow, not bullock but bull.

 

As a farmer who owns 3 bulls I stand by my statement, "To graze a bull in such a field is asking for trouble and an accident waiting to happen"

[njc110381]

After reading the post from the member who actually knows this chap, I do feel rather sorry for him! Something has obviously gone wrong which he didn't see coming.

 

It bugs me how much restriction there is on fields with footpaths on them, and I'm not even a farmer. You earn your living from the land, pay bills to maintain it and probably get taxed for the pleasure of owning it? But even though it's yours, someone with no financial input to the property has more right over it than you do.On top of that the maintenance of styles etc is your responsibility - it actually costs you money to allow people you don't want on your land to pass more freely! In my mind, law or not, that stinks!

 

I can think of a farm I used to shoot that didn't have a field that a footpath didn't run through, and most of those fields the path ran straight through the middle! If said farmer needed (not wanted, needed) a bull, where would he stand? I suppose he would have to erect thousands of meters of fences, install twice as many drinking troughs and generally spend a fortune to make sure these rights of way were properly protected?

 

It's all a joke anyway. The last bull that I annoyed went through a closed steel five bar gate like a runner through a finish line ribbon! What good will a fence do?! I suppose it simply covers one's rear just in case the worst should happen?

[harpoonlouis]

Charlie

 

I don't think we are a million miles apart on this one and I respect your experience as an owner.

 

Problem.

 

A bull once killed a farmer/ walker whoever, therefore all bulls are dangerous? Potentially yes they are, but many accidents, including fatal ones have been other stock. If we extend the cautionary principal to all species that have caused injury or death we are including cows, young stock, deer, horses and even sheep! I know the statistics say more bulls than sheep are lethal but if the threshold of responsibility is raised to a guarantee of safe passage with no leeway then we have a problem Yes/No? That is not a place I would like to find myself in as I am sure my horses are more than capable of injuring someone if the circumstances arose.

 

 

In this instance I know it wasn't just a lone bull in the field and I will be interested to hear the evidence presented in court because I will probably be there.

 

 

Gordon. Please give me a break! This is a forum not a courtroom and I really am not as green as grass, and wouldn't be quite so obvious in my distain for some walkers. I really do like the ones who fed my horse grass clippings and caused it to colic, fatally. The ones who left the gates open and got my brood mare inseminated by a horse so big we had to have it aborted just in case.... need I go on. I love them all, I really really do.

[Gordon R]

harpoonlouis - I was giving you a break. Something a barrister would not do.

 

My problem is your disdain for walkers, not whether you would hide it in court. I didn't chose your words - you did.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Gordon R