Compensation for woman injured by hound in road accident

A

Aru

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 December 2008
Messages
2,380
Visit site
Im confused as to why she sued the hunt too.....random story though.Thoughts anyone?
Are people to quick to sue?or is this a case where the driver deserved punishment for reckless driving?
 
I don't see why this is anti-hunting. I quite agree with the commentator, the person(s) whose dogs were loose on the road should be liable, not the driver who hit the dog. Weird decision!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why this is anti-hunting. I quite agree with the commentator, the person(s) whose dogs were loose on the road should be liable, not the driver who hit the dog. Weird decision!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but it seems that the driver failed to notice the woman in the road or take any notice of the vehicle she was in or the fact she was asking him to slow down. If he hadn't hit the hound, would he have hit the woman? It's difficult to tell as we don't know exactly what happened but for a judge to rule the driver was in the wrong makes me think that perhaps he wasn't paying due attention.

I wonder if one commentator is correct when they point out that hounds fall under the ‘herding’ category so would not be in the same category as a private owner with one loose dog. I’m not sure what the law is tbh, perhaps if there are any Masters or hunt staff on the forum they can enlighten us. But hounds must legally be allowed to be in large packs on the road as otherwise they would not be allowed to operate as they do.
 
I am not sure on that either, but even if hounds are legally allowed on the road it can't mean that the owner is not responsible if they cause an accident. The dog is described as being 'on the wrong side of the road' which seems to suggest that the dog was not under control and not where it should be.


I see what you mean regarding his driving, it's difficult to tell what happened from the brief discussion. I suppose I would want to know if the woman was wearing hi-viz, where she was standing, what the speed limit was (if it was high and he was driving at a high speed within the speed limit, it may be reasonable that he did not see her). Even if he was at fault for not seeing her asking him to slow down because there was a hazzard on the road, I still think the person responsible for the hazzard on the road is still responsible for the accident.
 
I'm not sure but I would have thought hounds are legally allowed on roads otherwise hunts would have been breaking the law for years, lol. I think it probably came down to a reasonable expectation of the driver - if, and only if, the hunt were visable to the driver when this particular hound broke away, then I would consider it reasonable on part of the driver to have slowed down due to the number of horses and hounds in the vicinity. If he continued along the road (not sure what the limit was) without slowing down when he could see that there were animals around, then he is at fault. Whether you agree with hunting or not, it is reasonable to expect a driver to slow down when passing horses, hounds or any other large group of animals (eg cows, sheep).

Who is responsible for the accident, as in at fault, is a seperate issue to whether he was driving without due care. The fact he did not see the woman is probably the key here - he could have hit her had he not hit the hound first. That he was found to be at fault suggests that he was not conceding to the right of way of the most vunerable users, ie the horses and hounds, as they would have right of way and he should yield even if they were on the wrong side of the road.

I don't know. Accidents happen, I guess, always have and always will. I agree that in an ideal world, the huntsman would always have total control of all hounds at all times but, being animals, they don't always make things easy! It may be that the judge decided that yes, the hound was in the way of the car when it should not have been but the driver should have seen it and the woman before he hit the hound.
 
I don't know either. I vaguely seem to recall a (new?) law that required dog owners to have their dogs on a lead on roads, but people were asking about hunt hounds at the time so not sure if there is an exception there.

I don't think I quite agree. Not seeing the woman cannot be an offence as he can only be held responsible for what he did, i.e. hit the dog which hit the woman, not what might have happened, i.e. he did not see the woman and might have hit her. Not sure I see the difference between who is at fault and whether he was driving without due care and attention. The law recognises that accidents will happen. So a driver of a well maintained vehicle, who is paying all his attention on the road, driving below the speed limit but still hits and kills a pedestrian because there was no way to avoid him is NOT at fault. There has to be negligence, i.e. a duty of care and a failure to fulfill this duty.

If the judge had decided that the hound should not have been there he would have found the hunt and the driver equally liable. The weird thing is that he held the driver solely liable, which seems to suggest that loose dogs all over the place is OK, which just can't be right.
 
A friend of mine tried to slow down a van by waving in the road, as he had hit a deer and it was in the middle of the road (i.e trying to do oncoming traffic a favour!).

The van took no notice and continued to plough straight into the carcass and looked very shocked

Drivers paying due care and attention slow down when asked!
I fully agree with the verdict as its about time people stopped acting like pigs when they are driving and take time to notice and respect what is going on around them.

I don't care whether it was a hound, child, sheep or whatever in the road, this b*stard ignored someone telling him to slow down and caused an accident purely due to his selfishness.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I don't care whether it was a hound, child, sheep or whatever in the road, this b*stard ignored someone telling him to slow down and caused an accident purely due to his selfishness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know something about the case that was not in the reports? Otherwise this is pure conjecture. The whole question is whether he saw her in the first place.

Even if we accept that he was at fault for not slowing down, I still don't see why the owner of the dog was not at fault for not having it under control. If my hound/child/sheep or whatever is out of control in the middle of the road the resulting accident is partly my fault. If my hound/child/sheep had not been in the middle of the road it would not have gotten hit and the accident would not have happened.
 
I would assume it would be due to the driver not paying attention. He should have seen her trying to alert traffic - Hi -viz or not.

I remember someone posted on here about a scooter accident and hitting the person who fell off as they couldnt see them lying on the road as they were in the dark and in dark clothing and they were advised that it was driving without due care and attention as the person who hit the scooter person after they were lying on the road should have been wary as there was a car with its hazards on near the scooter.

Id say it would be the same with the hounds - the woman was warning others so you should slow down (even if to be nosy!) enough that had he then hit the hound at a slow speed it wouldn't have ricochet into her face........
 
Just thinking...if the woman was warning about the dog then she must have been stood before the dog in the road, so that the car would see her, go past her and then hit the dog...how did the dog manage to hit her in the face then?

For the dog to hit her in the face she must have been standing next to it or after it, so what kind of warning was she able to give the car?

In other cases animal owners have been found strictly liable for their loose animals causing traffic accidents, so I suspect this will be overturned if it goes to appeal.
 
the woman, secretary to the hound pack, saw the hound( not dog by the way)was going to cross the road and so she warned any oncoming traffic, this particular driver took little notice, hit the hound, killing the poor thing, it ricocheted off his car and hit the woman. her being 81 had a hell of a knock. this means he must have been speeding as hounds, especially irish ones are not small!! by the by, this was all 4 years ago even though its only now been sorted, so hopefully thisisn't going to rage on on these forums for weeks!!
 
Thanks firm! Still weird that the judge made a judgement on the reasonableness of the precaution as other animal owners have been help strictly liable for their pets, e.g. there was a case very recently where an unknown person went to great lengths to open a secured gate, horses escaped, caused a serious accident, owner held strictly liable.

Salimali, not sure why you are unhappy with us discussing this! I find it fascinating and will try to get the trial records to find out more. The reason it is being discussed now is because the verdict came out now, it hit the news now and you can't discuss on-going trials on this forum. Also, not sure why the difference between hound and dog is relevant here, are hounds cats? Finally it may also mean that the hound was running, which would make the hound flying off much more likely than if the man was speeding (which would make it more likely that he would flatten the animal).
 
Just went to get the case reference for the All ER and noticed it was in Ireland!! That explains a lot about the interpretation of liability - entirely different set of laws!
 
[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine tried to slow down a van by waving in the road, as he had hit a deer and it was in the middle of the road (i.e trying to do oncoming traffic a favour!).

The van took no notice and continued to plough straight into the carcass and looked very shocked

Drivers paying due care and attention slow down when asked!
I fully agree with the verdict as its about time people stopped acting like pigs when they are driving and take time to notice and respect what is going on around them.

I don't care whether it was a hound, child, sheep or whatever in the road, this b*stard ignored someone telling him to slow down and caused an accident purely due to his selfishness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely and utterly agree with this, it is obvious to me that this driver is guilty of either careless driving or driving without due care and attention. He was on a country road and should have expected to encounter livestock, be they horses, cows sheep or hounds, other drivers saw the old lady warning them to slow down, why didn't he? To send a large hound flying through the air, he must have been driving at a fair old lick. If the old lady had died, I believe he would have been guilty of manslaughter, it's just luck that she was only injured and not killed.
 
I don't care whether it was a hound, child, sheep or whatever in the road, this b*stard ignored someone telling him to slow down and caused an accident purely due to his selfishness.

HEAR, HEAR.
I ended up with a broken collar bone, exercising (before going to work) on a long, straight piece of a very quiet, county road, about 7am one summer morning in daylight. Heard this car coming but had no-where to pull in so just waited for him to appear around the corner at the top end of the straight. Plenty of room for him to avoid me and the mare - and I waved to ask him to slow down. As he came closer, I could see that he obviously had no intention whatsoever of pulling out and was heading straight for her bum. My only option was to jump the hedge. Bless her, two strides at an angle off the very narrow grass verge and over we went but ended up in a heap on the other side. If that little mare had not been so brave, I think we both could have gone to the happy hunting grounds that morning. As you said, there are some real B******S on the roads - but there have been for many years.
 
He was on a country road and should have expected to encounter livestock, be they horses, cows sheep or hounds, other drivers saw the old lady warning them to slow down, why didn't he?

EXACTLY.
He was on a COUNTRY road NOT an "A" Road or a motorway.
We get total half-wits driving around here as if it was Le Mans - especially during the grockle season.
Have "BrambleandMonty" and "Booboos" ever owned any stock which have had to be moved from pasture to pasture on a road?? Has to be done sometimes - and farmers expect drivers to respect that fact. Sorry you townies (or you townie imports - who are, actually, 100 times worse) but a fact of country life.
 
I vaguely seem to recall a (new?) law that required dog owners to have their dogs on a lead on roads.

Yes, we are going to stop at a gate.
Ask 16-odd couple of hounds to "sit" whilst we put them on leads, cross the road and then let them off on the other side.
 
The other day, while footfollowing,with the RMAS Draghounds, I watched a herd of deer cross the road. (the are well known by locals,) Everyone stopped. These were not followers but ordinary motorists. The exception was a van driver who clearly saw what was happening, but cold bloodedly kept driving at the herd.Fortunately they were just too quick for him. What a bastard. I found this case very interesting,and thought it was a good post. In England at the moment we have some bad law, with the "no fault "liability,prescedent recently set.The Irish magistrate/judge, I think ,got it right. But it is an interesting case .Incidentally, there is nothing particularly unusual about sueing the hunt and the driver. It is meerely because the injuries were directly caused bythe hound(property of the hunt). All you professional lawyers out there poised ready to correct me, but I think it is called a "cross complaint" or somthing similar.
cool.gif
cool.gif
cool.gif
 
I think that new law was under the Clean Neighbourhoods Act, but only gave local councils the chance to introduce more stringent by-laws relating to dogs. There is no national requirement to have dogs on leads in public places.

I'm trying to imagine how fast the driver must have been going to hit a hound so hard that it flew into the air, high enough to strike someone. Too often people drive on country roads like they are taking part in the grand prix, oblivious of what they might meet coming the other way - be it a horse hacking, a cyclist, livestock being moved or indeed hounds on exercise.

Hounds are not machines and it is a fact of life that at times they will not always do what you tell them to do. It is then up to hunt officials to mitigate the situation, which as far as I can tell this hunt secretary was trying to do. She was probably lucky not to have been killed.

If this story had been about a whole pack getting onto an A Road and causing multiple accidents then I can imagine a scenario where blame would be laid on the shoulders of the hunt. In this case, one hound strayed from the pack on a country road and was hit by a motorist who doesn't seem to have been driving with the care that is warranted in an area where unexpected hazards can present themselves.
 
Do you eat at your desk? You may have a crumb stuck under the return key. Happened to me once, got a bit of crusty bread lodged under the Caps Lock key! You can lever off keys gently and remove the obstruction.
grin.gif
 
Good grief, why did the driver get sued for this?! You dont expect to come across a pack of dogs when out driving, I certainly wouldn't! Seems utterly ridiculous. Surely its the hunt to blame I guess, for not controlling the dogs which ultimately ended up with the woman getting hurt?
 
"Hounds" not dogs please. Yes, whilst driving on COUNTRY roads, one could well expect to come across cows, sheep, hounds, horses, deer et al - and hence, should drive accordingly. What if a farmer had been moving young beef cattle from one pasture to another? The carnage would have been dreadful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top