Our sheep hit by car -we have no public liability insurance

Gilally

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. I am really worried as we stupidly don't have liability insurance. The car was only slightly damaged on bumper but the owner was very angry. he took our tag number down. I don't mind paying for the small bit of damage that was done but I am afraid he will claim big style. My husband took photos of damage and skid marks on the road. We also took photo he was not currently taxed or displaying an insurance disk.

Any advise?

Yawns

if he's not taxed or insured, it won't make a difference to his claim against you. It would be up to the guards to decide to prosecute him if they wish to. Best thing you can hope for is he won't make a claim tbh.

Where did this incident take place?

Gilally

On a very bendy country road, would rather not disclose location here as it may identify us. Both my husband and FIL said he was going way to fast and couldn't stop. I know that is probably irrelivant. My husband said he had full control of the sheep.

mallethead

Did your husband have anyone in front of the sheep ?
If not i think you're liable
It happened a neighbour a few years back and he had to pay ,at the time his solicitor told him if he had some one in front of the sheep when he was driving them to warn people it is a different story

Yawns

I was just wondering as I came across some sheep wandering in and out of a field late last night on a bendy country road near Naas. There was a few cars coming as well so I flashed hazards to warn. Anyway that's irrelevant to your story. Forget about the guy going too fast and forget about his tax & insurance. It has no bearing on your case. The guards can't stop someone for speeding without having proof such as a speed gun so your father's word will mean nothing. Not saying it to get your back up, just simple truth.

The only thing that matters would be your father had livestock on the road and a car struck them. Your father as the owner is liable. This is one of the reasons he should have insurance but let's not bother going into that as I'm sure he's well aware and hindsight is great when dealing with these things.

I truly think the best thing that could be done is to go have a chat with the guy. He may have the bumper repaired and your FIL can foot the bill if it's small. The other guy might even drop it altogether if it's not that bad. He was angry last night when it happened, but he may have calmed down by now.

bob charles

Gilally wrote: »

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. I am really worried as we stupidly don't have liability insurance. The car was only slightly damaged on bumper but the owner was very angry. he took our tag number down. I don't mind paying for the small bit of damage that was done but I am afraid he will claim big style. My husband took photos of damage and skid marks on the road. We also took photo he was not currently taxed or displaying an insurance disk.

Any advise?

Deffo should have sought to call the guards. Maybe going and making a statement to them relating to the incident and who is involved maybe the way to go. Just because the person has your tag number doesnt amount to much, You could look at counter claiming for loss of sheep but dont know where you would be if the driver has no insurance. It really is a farce if someone with no insurance and tax can make a claim against someone if they are not legally allowed on the road.


IF you have no public liability I assume the person would have to take a civil case, would think this would be much more awkward as ins companies are usually very quick to pay out. You could get in contact with the person seeking there insurance details as you want to claim off their insurance and maybe able to call their bluff.

Who is to say the incident ever happened:rolleyes:, The driver of the car would have to claim he was driving on the road without tax and insurance

bob charles

mallethead wrote: »

Did your husband have anyone in front of the sheep ?
If not i think you're liable
It happened a neighbour a few years back and he had to pay ,at the time his solicitor told him if he had some one in front of the sheep when he was driving them to warn people it is a different story

Im nearly certain you are always 100% liable if one of your stock hit a car on a public road, irrespective. nowadays we just block our road with vehicles parted across when moving cattle as people just wont stop.

Horace

Report the matter to the guards and get them to record your statement in writing . Was your sheep injured if so ask for the drivers insurance details as you could make a counter claim for damages against the driver or his insurance company, the fact that he may not have no tax or insurance or also no nct cert will have a major bearing on what action he will then want to take . Also if the sheep is injured get a vet to examine it .

Tipp Man

Go to your solicitor asap

If you haven't got 1 get a good 1 asap

You have potentially a bit of a problem - you need proper legal advice

Gilally

Quote for liability insurance today.. too late but it is done.

The man didn't swap details he just drove off so hopefully won't pursue. I just need to know where we stand if he does.

Many thanks for all advise here, we're new to farming so should have looked into insurance but never even occurred to us.:(

Min

Should have gave out to the driver for driving too fast around the bend and ask what if it had been a child?

How was the sheep that was hit?

leg wax

and have you learned a lesson, will you get insurance now.:rolleyes:

Arrow in the Knee

Hows the sheep Gilally?

hoseman

Can be corrected on, this but I inderstand the only camera to stand up in court is the disposable type as these can not be tampered with,all other camers you can change the image.Off topic I know ,try and keep us posted.

tricky D

hoseman wrote: »

Can be corrected on, this but I inderstand the only camera to stand up in court is the disposable type as these can not be tampered with,all other camers you can change the image.Off topic I know ,try and keep us posted.

Not quite true. You attest that the image is the original one taken by the camera. There are also ways to tell if an image has been edited, though not 100% reliable in every case.

bbam

Min wrote: »

Should have gave out to the driver for driving too fast around the bend and ask what if it had been a child?

How was the sheep that was hit?

I take your point but this wasn't the instance to be taking the higher moral ground.. To be honest its no concern of OP that the car had no tax/insurance displayed...

Your in a bit of a jam really and my advice is to be amicable with the driver and the best you can hope for is to settle for a reasonable repair bill..

We had a bull fall over a ditch down onto the road years ago and it hit a car.. Nobody injured and luckily I knew the fella driving so we got away with the repair.. Took out insurance the following week !! and its never been lapsed since.

Hunter Mahan

bob charles wrote: »

Im nearly certain you are always 100% liable if one of your stock hit a car on a public road, irrespective. nowadays we just block our road with vehicles parted across when moving cattle as people just wont stop.

Unfortunately if you park a vehicle across a road blocking it then you would be in serious trouble if someone drove straight into it. Easy money for them.

A different story if there is someone in the vehicle and it is not parked across the road.

the_syco

Gilally wrote: »

Any advise?

Report him for having no insurance? Lucky he hit a sheep and not you, or you'd be paying your own medical bills!

Gilally wrote: »

The man didn't swap details he just drove off so hopefully won't pursue.

No tax gets you a slap on the wrist, but no insurance is seen in a very bad light by the Gardai, and can lead to court. Add an accident and I'd say he knows that it could mean a driving ban.

Get legal advice from a solicitor about if you should contact the Gardai or not, and also get public liability insurance yourself straight away.

ford2600

OP a little more info here please.
Were ye going in opposite directions?
80km speed limit?
Were sheep far ahead of your husband?

Have reread rules of road and don't see how you can be automatically liable.
Your husband is entitled to use road to drive cattle or sheep. Ye are both road users. Because he has an engine it DOESN'T give him more rights.
He is required to "bring his vehicle to a halt within the sight distance available to him". End of.
What were conditions like? Wet road? Lighting? Sight distance.

Were sheep out of control on road?

I wouldn't be rolling over in this situation

Gilally wrote: »

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. I am really worried as we stupidly don't have liability insurance. The car was only slightly damaged on bumper but the owner was very angry. he took our tag number down. I don't mind paying for the small bit of damage that was done but I am afraid he will claim big style. My husband took photos of damage and skid marks on the road. We also took photo he was not currently taxed or displaying an insurance disk.

Any advise?

ford2600

Also is location of accident a ssection of road where sheep(anybodies sheep ) might be on road I.e. a mountain road with no fences? There sre many such locations where I cycle in Comeragh and Knockmealdown mountains

irishgeo

thought one of the rules of the road was that you had to stop for someone in charge of animals.

mathepac

the_syco wrote: »

... Lucky he hit a sheep and not you, or you'd be paying your own medical bills! ...

Why do posters insist on continuing to post this sort of ill-informed rubbish?

Anyone who suffers injury or loss through involvement in an accident / incident with an uninsured driver has recourse via the MIBI.

In response to the genius who posted theis "...nowadays we just block our road with vehicles parted across when moving cattle as people just wont stop...." check the rules of the road published by the RSA. There are explicit instructions for motorists and for people (note the plural) herding livestock on public roads.

As herders, you have the power and the responsibility to warn and to stop traffic. Report those who don't stop or won't obey your instructions as they are breaking the law. Blocking roads wit tractors or moving livestock single-handed leaves you open to charges of breaking the law.

Farmer Pudsey

mathepac wrote: »

Why do posters insist on continuing to post this sort of ill-informed rubbish?

Anyone who suffers injury or loss through involvement in an accident / incident with an uninsured driver has recourse via the MIBI.

In response to the genius who posted theis "...nowadays we just block our road with vehicles parted across when moving cattle as people just wont stop...." check the rules of the road published by the RSA. There are explicit instructions for motorists and for people (note the plural) herding livestock on public roads.

As herders, you have the power and the responsibility to warn and to stop traffic. Report those who don't stop or won't obey your instructions as they are breaking the law. Blocking roads wit tractors or moving livestock single-handed leaves you open to charges of breaking the law.

I agree with all of the above however it is a crazy situtation if a person is driving an uninsured car and can claim in the case of an accident with animals. Not sure what is the situtation in the case of a two car incident where one is not insure but my understanding is that insurance companies do not pay out.

If driver contacts you OP do not offer to pay that is an admission of liability. Contact a solicitor before doing anything. Do not make a statement to the gaurds unless requested. You possibly may inform them of the incident

It is not illegal for you not to have Public Liability it is illegal for him to have no insurance. He has a lot to lose for being involved in an accident with no insurance

mf240

He wont want to go to court as he knows he will be charged with having no insurance.

If he didn't call the guards at the time you could develop a loss of memory of the accident, and say that he must of got the number off poor old dolly that died from grass tetany just inside the gate.

moy83

Gilally wrote: »

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. I am really worried as we stupidly don't have liability insurance. The car was only slightly damaged on bumper but the owner was very angry. he took our tag number down. I don't mind paying for the small bit of damage that was done but I am afraid he will claim big style. My husband took photos of damage and skid marks on the road. We also took photo he was not currently taxed or displaying an insurance disk.

Any advise?

I'd say you probably wont hear from him again OP , I would take a guess that he was probably as mad as he was because he knew he wasnt fully legit so couldnt really go calling the guards out to back out any claim he might have thought he had .
Were you even in the wrong anyhow ?
Give a solicitor a ring in the morn and they could probably give you an idea of where you stand over the phone , hopefully it will turn out well for you .

farmer_dave

Hunter Mahan wrote: »

Unfortunately if you park a vehicle across a road blocking it then you would be in serious trouble if someone drove straight into it. Easy money for them.

If the vehicle is stationary then it might not be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The situation suggests that the 'someone' was driving too fast to react to an obstacle in the road. Blocking the road is another matter.

Also, can someone correct me on this. I was under the assumption that farmers were responsible for animals on the road during hours of daylight, but during the hours of darkness it becomes a grey area.

mathepac

farmer_dave wrote: »

... The situation suggests that the 'someone' was driving too fast to react to an obstacle in the road. ....

It also suggests to me that there was no-one ahead of the livestock to warn on-coming traffic.

Your point is conjecture, mine is fact based on the OP.

farmer_dave wrote: »

.... but during the hours of darkness it becomes a grey area.

Good joke, but if they're your cattle and broke out, who's responsibility is it? Also if some mad hoor want's to move cattle at mid-night on winter's night who's responsible then?

farmer_dave

mathepac wrote: »

It also suggests to me that there was no-one ahead of the livestock to warn on-coming traffic.

Your point is conjecture, mine is fact based on the OP.
Good joke, but if they're your cattle and broke out, who's responsibility is it? Also if some mad hoor want's to move cattle at mid-night on winter's night who's responsible then?

It is not clear at all. And by the way wind your neck in. If you disagree with me, then fair enough. But don't get snotty.

These extracts are from this site http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm. I'm not fully up to date on law, but was offering a opinion. I can't see a date on it, but laws change slowly at the best of times.

If everything posted on this site was based on fact there would be very fekking little to read.

In the Northern Ireland case of Hall v. Wightman the plaintiff's motor car collided with the defendant's dark brown heifer which had strayed from the defendant's field through another field onto the highway. The accident
occurred after midnight and it was found as a fact there was no negligence in the driving of the car. Although there were 7 cattle near the accident it was admitted by the parties that they were not causing an obstruction at the time of the accident. The court held that there is no obligation on the owner of land adjoining the highway to fence his lands in such a manner as to keep his animals from straying onto the highway and there being neither negligence nor nuisance on his part the defendant was not liable. The court, however, expressly declared that the matter might have been different if a lot of cattle were causing an obstruction on the highway at the time of the accident, as was the case in Cunningham v. Whelan. Cunningham v. Whelan was, therefore, approved but distinguished.

Concerning injuries caused by animals which stray onto the highway the law is different. Normally speaking no liability attaches to the owner of such animals simply because he has allowed them to escape from his land. There is no obligation in such circumstances to fence one's land and to keep one's domestic animals in. Moreover, the orthodox view also states that road users in such circumstances voluntarily accept the normal risks associated with highways including the possibility that animals will be present on the highway.

The rule although found in earlier common law is usually referred to as the rule in Searle v. Wallbank173. Since the decision in this case has come in for some severe criticism in recent years the facts ought to be recited.

The plaintiff was injured when at 1.30 a.m. on 1 April 1944 the bicycle which he was riding collided with the defendant's horse on a public highway. The plaintiff's front light was masked in accordance with war-time regulations at the time of the accident. The field in which the horse was kept, with other animals, adjoined the highway and the horse escaped because of a defective fence. The House of Lords in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal held that the owner of a field adjoining the highway is under no prima facie legal obligation to users of the highway so to keep and maintain his hedges and gates along the highway as to prevent his animals from straying onto it. Nor is he under any duty to users of the highway to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying onto the highway.

The general principle stated in Searle v. Wallbank has been accepted in Ireland in the following cases: Gibb v. Comerford; Dunphy v. Bryan; Cunningham v. Whelan; and in Northern Ireland in Hall v. Wightman.
In Gibb v. Comerford, Maguire P., cited with approval the following dictum from Heath's Garage, Ltd. v. Hodges as being a proper statement of the law.

“In my opinion the experience of centuries has shown that the presence of domestic animals upon the highway is not inconsistant with the reasonable
safety of the public using the road. I am unable to draw any distinction in this regard between domestic animals. I think horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, fowl and dogs all fall into the same category for this purpose.... The prima facie harmlessness of domestic animals as frequenters of the highway is, I think, established as a legal doctrine.”

Although it is clear, therefore, from Searle v. Wallbank, that the owner cannot in general be sued for injuries caused by his animals straying on the highway, the question still remains as to what is the position in relation to the plea of contributory negligence if the owner of the animal brings an action against the road user for wrongfully injuring his animal.

In the context of a Searle v. Wallbank type accident, therefore, this interpretation would mean that although the conduct of the farmer in permitting his cattle to stray is not actionable (Searle v. Wallbank) it may still amount to “want of care” for the purpose of §34 of the Civil LiabilityAct 1961. It would, on this interpretation, constitute a partial or total defence under the section. A consequence of this, of course, is that the farmer may by his “want of care” be found 100% to blame for the accident and recover nothing for the loss of the animal.

By way of summary, therefore, the following tentative proposals for reform are suggested.

1.

The existing immunity of the owner of straying cattle for damage caused on the highway should be abolished.

2.

The owner of an animal which causes injury should be made liable on principles of strict liability irrespective of fault. Two exceptions should be made in such a system of liability: first, the defence of Act of God should be available to the defendant and second, in determining the rights of a trespasser who is injured by an animal ordinary negligence principles should apply. In all such cases, however, the plaintiff's own fault should also be a ground for reducing the damages awarded.

3.

The adoption of such a strict system would mean that the rules of scienter, cattle trespass and dogs worrying cattle, could be abolished as they would be absorbed by the new system.

ford2600

I also found the law reform commission paper on line, 1978 I think. It was fillowed by legislation in 1982. Worth a read.
The rules of the road also worth reading before lads start rearing on each other

farmer_dave wrote: »

It is not clear at all. And by the way wind your neck in. If you disagree with me, then fair enough. But don't get snotty.

These extracts are from this site http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm. I'm not fully up to date on law, but was offering a opinion. I can't see a date on it, but laws change slowly at the best of times.

If everything posted on this site was based on fact there would be very fekking little to read.

Hunter Mahan

farmer_dave wrote: »

If the vehicle is stationary then it might not be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The situation suggests that the 'someone' was driving too fast to react to an obstacle in the road. Blocking the road is another matter.

Also, can someone correct me on this. I was under the assumption that farmers were responsible for animals on the road during hours of daylight, but during the hours of darkness it becomes a grey area.

I was referring to the poster who said he blocks the roads with his vehicles to protect his livestock.
If he were to park a vehicle across the road, blocking it, and someone drove into it he would be at fault, regardless of the circumstances, stretch of road etc..

In an age of staged accidents, he's a sitting duck

ford2600

Also have a read of SI 294 of 1964 sections 31 & 32.
Don't think it has been repealed

mathepac

farmer_dave wrote: »

It is not clear at all. ...

What you mean is it's not clear to you.

farmer_dave wrote: »

.... And by the way wind your neck in. If you disagree with me, then fair enough. But don't get snotty. ...

I haven't got a clue what you are raving about here.

farmer_dave wrote: »

...
These extracts are from this site ... I'm not fully up to date on law, but was offering a opinion. I can't see a date on it, but laws change slowly at the best of times....

Isn't all that "in the dark" stuff way off-topic?

farmer_dave wrote: »

... If everything posted on this site was based on fact there would be very fekking little to read.

Informed opinion is good enough for me; the weird, off-topic, left-field stuff less so.

Dont be daft

mathepac wrote: »

It also suggests to me that there was no-one ahead of the livestock to warn on-coming traffic.

Your point is conjecture, mine is fact based on the OP.

Both your points are conjecture. The OP stated that two potential herdsmen witnessed the accident. Which immediately casts doubt on your point.

mathepac wrote: »

What you mean is it's not clear to you.

And its clear to you is it?

mathepac wrote: »

I haven't got a clue what you are raving about here.

He means you being arrogant. If you cant see that then there's no hope for you.
Do you think your the 1st person in history to attain a legal qualification? Get over yourself.

mathepac

Dont be daft wrote: »

Both your points are conjecture. The OP stated that two potential herdsmen witnessed the accident. Which immediately casts doubt on your point. ....

No, my point is not conjecture. There may have been two witnesses to the accident but only one herdsman is very clearly identified by the OP as follows when she wrote ...

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. ...

and

On a very bendy country road, .... Both my husband and FIL said he was going way to fast and couldn't stop. .... My husband said he had full control of the sheep.

So her husband, on his own, was moving the sheep and he said he had full control of them. No-one else is identified as exercising control over the sheep or as moving ahead of them to warn traffic there was live-stock on the “very bendy country road”, exactly the place where you need an advance herdsman.

Dont be daft wrote: »

... And its clear to you is it? ....

Crystal dude, crystal.

Dont be daft wrote: »

... He means you being arrogant. If you cant see that then there's no hope for you. ...

I’ve survived this long in life and on boards.ie without needing access to your opinions and input; I suspect I’ll survive a while longer.

Dont be daft wrote: »

... Do you think your the 1st person in history to attain a legal qualification? ...

I don’t have one of those, just an ability to read and understand plain English.

Dont be daft wrote: »

... Get over yourself.

And maybe you need to take the advice proferred to others in your user-name.

I must point out that the latter part of your post is an ad hominem attack on me and has nothing to say about the incident under discussion.

ford2600

Not meaning to interrupt row, but what law or regulations states you need to have someone infront of two sheep as well as behind?
Can't see it rotr or any other legislation

Dont be daft

mathepac wrote: »

No, my point is not conjecture. There may have been two witnesses to the accident but only one herdsman is very clearly identified by the OP as follows when she wrote ...
and
So her husband, on his own, was moving the sheep and he said he had full control of them. No-one else is identified as exercising control over the sheep or as moving ahead of them to warn traffic there was live-stock on the “very bendy country road”, exactly the place where you need an advance herdsman.

The OP stated that her husband was in control of the sheep. Not sole control. It was obviously a statement designed to state that the sheep were not out of control, not an identification of who was or wasn't herding.

The very existence of a 2nd potential herdsman makes your point conjecture. It casts doubt on whether or not there was an advancing herdsman.
Until it is clarified as to the role played by the father in law it cannot be concluded that that the husband was the sole herdsman.

Therefore your conclusion is preemptive and ultimately conjecture.
You cannot say that it is a conclusion drawn on sufficient evidence when clearly more evidence is needed to clarify.

mathepac wrote: »

Crystal dude, crystal.
I’ve survived this long in life and on boards.ie without needing access to your opinions and input; I suspect I’ll survive a while longer.

Your survival is none of my concern, but thank you for that affirmation of your own ability to eek out an existence. Heart-warming stuff.

mathepac wrote: »

I must point out that the latter part of your post is an ad hominem attack on me and has nothing to say about the incident under discussion.

I'm glad that didn't elude you.

Dont be daft

ford2600 wrote: »

Not meaning to interrupt row, but what law or regulations states you need to have someone infront of two sheep as well as behind?
Can't see it rotr or any other legislation

Off the top of my head there is none with the exception of night herding. There may be but I cant remember any.

But thats not really the issue. The issue will probably be in negligence. So the herdsman does not necessarily need to break the law.
Once its foreseeable that the accident could happen then that's enough to raise potential liability.
After that its down to mitigating factors whether or not liability is found.

ford2600

Ok let's assume there was only one herdsman, walking behinnd two sheep and no one in front.
Are you saying that there is liability on the farmer in not having someone in front?
Would someone in front be any more visible than two sheep?
The driver has a very clear requirement to drive his car with regard to other road users and be in a position to bring it to a halt

Dont be daft wrote: »

Off the top of my head there is none with the exception of night herding. There may be but I cant remember any.

But thats not really the issue. The issue will probably be in negligence. So the herdsman does not necessarily need to break the law.
Once its foreseeable that the accident could happen then that's enough to raise potential liability.
After that its down to mitigating factors whether or not liability is found.

the_syco

mathepac wrote: »

Anyone who suffers injury or loss through involvement in an accident / incident with an uninsured driver has recourse via the MIBI.

Sorry, my bad. I'll rephrase it to "lucky he hit a sheep and not you, or you'd be paying your own medical bills, but you'll eventually get the money back off the MIBI".

That is, after you find the other vehicle, to ensure that they didn't have insurance on that day (eg; disc wasn't in the post). Anyone that I know who had to go to the MIBI found it to be a long process. Sure, he'd probably get the money back, but not whilst he's still in the hospital.

mathepac

Dont be daft wrote: »

The OP stated that her husband was in control of the sheep. Not sole control. It was obviously a statement designed to state that the sheep were not out of control, not an identification of who was or wasn't herding. ...

OP put her post together using ordinary everyday English, not as legalese with a view to having it picked over.

No-one in the ordinary everyday cut and thrust of life uses terms like "sole control", they say things like "my husband had control of the sheep" if there was one herdsman or "my husband and AN Other had control of the sheep" if there was more than one.

The OP's account of events that day, given that it's the only one we have or are likely to get, describes what happened perfectly and need never be the subject of your misguided analysis and unwarranted conjecture which lead you to erroneous conclusions. Her statement is clear, concise and not open to debate.

There are times when 1 + 0 = 1 despite attempts to prove otherwise.

Dont be daft wrote: »

... Your survival is none of my concern, but thank you for that affirmation of your own ability to eek out an existence. Heart-warming stuff.





I'm glad that didn't elude you.

I have passed on your ill-mannered loutish comments to the moderators, as they are clear breaches of the forum's charter. Hopefully the moderators have less important things to do than censuring abuse such as yours.

mathepac

the_syco wrote: »

Sorry, my bad. I'll rephrase it to "lucky he hit a sheep and not you, or you'd be paying your own medical bills, but you'll eventually get the money back off the MIBI".

That is, after you find the other vehicle, to ensure that they didn't have insurance on that day (eg; disc wasn't in the post). Anyone that I know who had to go to the MIBI found it to be a long process. ...

The short-term alternative open to people in those situations is to claim off their own comprehensive insurance while thy pursue their claim; that way they only take a hit on their premiums (recoverable) and are not out thousands for medical and garage bills.

It's gratifying to hear that the system with the MIBI worked for those people you know, I'd wager they prefer it to the alternative of footing all those bills themselves, suffering further indignity and damage because of a law-breaker.

Dont be daft

mathepac wrote: »

OP put her post together using ordinary everyday English, not as legalese with a view to having it picked over.

No-one in the ordinary everyday cut and thrust of life uses terms like "sole control", they say things like "my husband had control of the sheep" if there was one herdsman or "my husband and AN Other had control of the sheep" if there was more than one.

The OP's account of events that day, given that it's the only one we have or are likely to get, describes what happened perfectly and need never be the subject of your misguided analysis and unwarranted conjecture which lead you to erroneous conclusions. Her statement is clear, concise and not open to debate.

We're just going around in circles here on what is a pedantic point adding little to the thread.
For what its worth, while ambiguity exists conjecture is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Conjecture is drawing a conclusion without sufficient proof. Drawing a conclusion on the available proof is not a substitute for this and does not absolve ones statement from being conjecture.

But ultimately, its sufficient to say that I think your wrong and you think your right.

mathepac wrote: »

I have passed on your ill-mannered loutish comments to the moderators, as they are clear breaches of the forum's charter. Hopefully the moderators have less important things to do than censuring abuse such as yours.

If you feel my comments have warranted this then so beit. I suppose an apology would seem disingenuous now, but no hard feelings, eh?

ford2600 wrote: »

Ok let's assume there was only one herdsman, walking behinnd two sheep and no one in front.
Are you saying that there is liability on the farmer in not having someone in front?
Would someone in front be any more visible than two sheep?
The driver has a very clear requirement to drive his car with regard to other road users and be in a position to bring it to a halt

Not necessarily, but think of it as a positive and negative system. Having someone in front would be a major positive for the farmer, speeding by the motorist would be another positive.
Not having someone in front wont necessarily make him guilty but having someone in front would be a much stronger case to argue and would probably tip it in his favor.

Hunter Mahan

mathepac wrote: »

The short-term alternative open to people in those situations is to claim off their own comprehensive insurance while thy pursue their claim; that way they only take a hit on their premiums (recoverable) and are not out thousands for medical and garage bills.

It's gratifying to hear that the system with the MIBI worked for those people you know, I'd wager they prefer it to the alternative of footing all those bills themselves, suffering further indignity and damage because of a law-breaker.

It's a pity there is not a button to report condescension or arrogance. It seems to me, that's all you brought to the table, absolutely nothing of value.

the_syco

mathepac wrote: »

It's gratifying to hear that the system with the MIBI worked for those people you know, I'd wager they prefer it to the alternative of footing all those bills themselves, suffering further indignity and damage because of a law-breaker.

Mate down the road had his car totalled, but had to wait about a year to get 60% of the value back (when the other cars owner was tracked down, they went back to Poland next day).

Gilally

Hi thanks for replies my husband was in front with sheep dog FIL was behind. Car came around sharp bend FIL moved slightly as car skidded and car subsequently hit sheep. I will absolutely get public liability insurance we are novices it's no excuse but that was reality. Sheep is doing well my husband is just back from she'd now after giving penicillin.

ford2600

You had someone front and back with two sheep and you feel you are somehow at fault.
Do not give the ****er a cent.
He could have as easily hit your FIL.

Gilally wrote: »

Hi thanks for replies my husband was in front with sheep dog FIL was behind. Car came around sharp bend FIL moved slightly as car skidded and car subsequently hit sheep. I will absolutely get public liability insurance we are novices it's no excuse but that was reality. Sheep is doing well my husband is just back from she'd now after giving penicillin.

jomoloney

Gilally wrote: »

Hi thanks for replies my husband was in front with sheep dog FIL was behind. Car came around sharp bend FIL moved slightly as car skidded and car subsequently hit sheep. I will absolutely get public liability insurance we are novices it's no excuse but that was reality. Sheep is doing well my husband is just back from she'd now after giving penicillin.

when enquiring about insurance get a quote for employers liability also

public liability would cover you in this scenario but there are times when it wouldn't

ask a reputable broker or even a quick phone call to you solicitor

Dont be daft

mathepac wrote: »

It also suggests to me that there was no-one ahead of the livestock to warn on-coming traffic.

Your point is conjecture, mine is fact based on the OP.

mathepac wrote: »

No, my point is not conjecture. There may have been two witnesses to the accident but only one herdsman is very clearly identified by the OP as follows when she wrote ...
and
So her husband, on his own, was moving the sheep and he said he had full control of them. No-one else is identified as exercising control over the sheep or as moving ahead of them to warn traffic there was live-stock on the “very bendy country road”, exactly the place where you need an advance herdsman.

mathepac wrote: »

The OP's account of events that day, given that it's the only one we have or are likely to get, describes what happened perfectly and need never be the subject of your misguided analysis and unwarranted conjecture which lead you to erroneous conclusions. Her statement is clear, concise and not open to debate.

Gilally wrote: »

Hi thanks for replies my husband was in front with sheep dog FIL was behind. Car came around sharp bend FIL moved slightly as car skidded and car subsequently hit sheep.

Being wrongs a bitch, but when you impose your point with an undertone of condescension and arrogance and that point turns out to be incorrect, well that's just plain embarrassing.

But shur hey, we're only a bunch of thick farmers. We need to be put in our place by the intellects of this world every now and then.

Bizzum

Gilally wrote: »

Hi thanks for replies my husband was in front with sheep dog FIL was behind. Car came around sharp bend FIL moved slightly as car skidded and car subsequently hit sheep. I will absolutely get public liability insurance we are novices it's no excuse but that was reality. Sheep is doing well my husband is just back from she'd now after giving penicillin.

IMO this is a game changer. Your Husband and FIL were in total control of the sheep, excercising their rights. The motorist IMO has a case to answer here.
You need legal advice. Without fail, talk to your solicitor monday.

mathepac

Hunter Mahan wrote: »

It's a pity there is not a button to report condescension or arrogance. It seems to me, that's all you brought to the table, absolutely nothing of value.

In your very humble opinion of course. Am I condescending? Only to those whose posts indicate they are deserving of it; those posts usually stick out like sore thumbs.

Dont be daft wrote: »

Being wrongs a bitch ....

Jeeze, I dunno. I was right based on the information given originally in that another herdsman on the scene had not been identified by OP. Can I be wrong retrospectively? Of course I can't. If all of the information now available had been posted originally, then we'd have been in violent agreement. C'est la vie as they say in Killnascully.

vincenzolorenzo

mathepac wrote: »

In your very humble opinion of course. Am I condescending? Only to those whose posts indicate they are deserving of it; those posts usually stick out like sore thumbs.
Jeeze, I dunno. I was right based on the information given originally in that another herdsman on the scene had not been identified by OP. Can I be wrong retrospectively? Of course I can't. If all of the information now available had been posted originally, then we'd have been in violent agreement. C'est la vie as they say in Killnascully.

Jaysus you are some tulip :rolleyes: