The Shirlie Mckaskie Case: Killler Herds of Cows – the Underlying Questions
This morning Farming Today covered the legal situation where ramblers, mainly dog walkers, have been injured by herds of cows on public footpaths.
I have uploaded the report, since it will vanish from the BBC website in a week. It is a far more sensible conversation than is likely to occur elsewhere in the media on this question (10 minutes).
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The report concerns Shirlie McKaskie, disabled after being “attacked” by a herd of cows while walking her dog in Cumbria, who has won a ruling from Preston Crown Court that the farmer is “liable” by because “because he had not properly considered the risk. “. Ms McKaskie, who was brain damaged in the incident, is claiming one million pounds in damages.
Cases of walkers being trampled or “attacked” by cows are unusual, but this is not unique. The vast majority of cases involve dog-walkers.
(Photo source).
My Comments
“Farmers need to be able to farm, and walkers need to be able to walk” from Tom Franklin, the Chief Executive of the Ramblers Association, seems to sum it up quite nicely.
Cases such as this one are extremely rare, and in this case evidence from independent witnesses is not available. This is a case where the slow majesty of the law needs to come to a sensible, nuanced, verdict.
If this ruling *is* sustained, then what are the implications for farmers in the context of “right to roam”? Are herds of cows and calves to be excluded from all “right to roam” land, or what restrictions should apply?
My preference is that responsibility should be placed – if we must make more rules – on dog-walkers. To require farmer to take measures suct as fencing in footpaths to “protect” members of the public from foreseeable consequences, even rare ones, of their actions, is mistaken. A public footpath is simply a right of way across land: in the absence of clear malice or negligence on the part of the landowner, walkers are responsible for themselves.
It seems to me to be quite reasonable to exclude dogs from area where cows and calves are in fields together; it is an easy distinction to make, and there are plenty of areas available for walking which do not involve farmland. We already have certain restrictions on use of public footpaths.
There may be a spate of “Health and Safety Gone Mad” stories about this case. The conversation in the programme above from all sides has been far more sensible.
Note that regulations for “bulls” are different to those for cows, and depend on whether the bull is with a herd or on its own.
Notes and Previous Cases
- The most recent case (June 2009). Dog Walker Is Killed By Stampeding Cattle
- A recent case (April 2008) of a dog walker trampled to death by cows.
- The Institution of Health and Safety forums had a discussion thread on Rural Safety (Bulls) this back in 2007. Note that it is a discussion thread, so make sure to read the whole thimg.
- A Scottish Farmer fined over a goring death by a bull back in 1999, due to a lack of adequate fencing.
- A Devon County Council leaflet advising on “bulls on public rights of way“.
Wrapping Up
In passing, Farming Today seems to be turning into Consumer Programme – a Radio version of “Country File”, complete with emails from listeners and “please post your views on our messageboard”. The interviewer in the segment above seems to me to be taking a finger-jabbing approach, where I think this programme should be more inquisitorial.
Categories: All WW, Comment, Farming, Legal, News - Current Affairs, Politics, Regions
I agree with your approach. Litigation culture and its effects can be very negative, but whether it has those effects depends not just on claimants – who will understandably want to try to access funds from insurance and so on that could help pay to support them if they’ve been seriously injured like this woman. It also depends on how we all react, including the media, organisations like the NFU, insurance companies and their lawyers (perhaps most critically) and farmers themselves. You’re right, the presenter was perhaps a bit tabloid in the way she presented options to guests, but the discussion was a calm one, with the NFU and the Ramblers’ representatives taking sensible lines I thought.
It’d be way over the top to think this case means farmers much fence walkers in. I think it’d also be a bit sad though if the conclusion was people should never walk with dogs in case of coming across calves.
Yes, walkers need to accept risks. I don’t think, though, that that principle requires farmers to be held safe from all risks of being sued. If walkers need to accept there may be risks from cattle if they walk with a dog, I think it’s also fair for farmers to accept there’s some risk to them if someone is seriously hurt by their calves. It’s all turn on the facts in any case, of course, and we don’t know all the facts in this case. But I’d like to see farmers protected if they consider putting calves elsewhere, put up a rudimentary sign, and especially if they suggest alternative ways round for walkers. If on the other hand they don’t consider any risk management at all, then I think they probably do need to accept some share of that risk. I hope the reaction isn’t one of total risk avoidance.
Farmers should not be responsible for the harm caused to a rambler by their animals. Simple. If however a farmer were to deploy a bear trap on a footpath then they should be liable. Simple.
People walking on Footpaths or anywhere else should be responsible for their own actions.
If I step of a curb in front of a fast moving car, the driver is not liable. Neither should the farmer be…
Zorro
That’s pretty much where I stand.
I would draw the line if the farmer put ostriches in the field, though.
Matt