Something Lisa and I discussed as her claim was concluding was whether there was anything we could do to advise ramblers and farmers on this topic. Our shared aim being, as you’d expect, to reduce the frequency of these types of incidents.
These factors are not likely to be determinative of liability in isolation but there are sensible, practical steps outlined below for ramblers and farmers alike.
Ramblers should give cattle space. It may be attractive to use alternative routes where practicable, to avoid walking through fields containing cattle.
Dogs should also be under effective control. It is often sensible for the dog to be on a lead around livestock. Ramblers are advised to let go of their dog’s lead when feeling threatened by cattle.
Ramblers should also be respectful of livestock and should take simple steps like ensuring gates are closed properly and public rights of way are followed.
There are also important recommendations for ramblers in the Countryside Code here >
While some incidents will never be explained, there are often some common factors:
- dogs attract more attention;
- a cow may be upset by people walking between her and her calf; and
- certain breeds of cattle are more unpredictable than traditional breeds such as the common Friesian.
For those who may wonder if wearing red is provocative, it is understood that bulls aren’t agitated by the colour. They charge the bullfighter’s cape because it is moving and not because it is red.
Clearly ramblers have a duty to take reasonable care for themselves, but farmers are deemed to have a far greater deeper understanding of the behavioural characteristics of their cattle and have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect lawful visitors to their land.
Farmers should give careful thought to where they graze cattle, particularly where there is public access such as a public footpath. Appropriate signage should be used to warn ramblers of a herd containing cows with calves and / or a bull. Secure gates and suitable fencing should be used to contain the animals.
Herds of cattle containing cows with calves should only be grazed on public access land where there is no suitable alternative. In those circ*mstances, fencing or other such separation from the footpath might be appropriate, especially where routes are heavily used by the public. If separation is not possible an alternative route could be provided for ramblers to follow.
Farmers should position water troughs and feed stations away from public footpaths and entrances / exits to fields. They should check public footpaths are clearly marked.
Farmers should monitor and manage their herds. Any animals showing signs of aggression or temperamental issues should be removed from fields that the public can lawfully access.
It should be understood that normally docile cattle can behave differently, including aggressively, in various circ*mstances such as when their maternal instincts are aroused, when stressed (e.g. weather, illness, unusual disturbance), when threatened (by the presence of a rambler and / or their dog).
Farmers should not keep dairy bulls in fields with public access at any time. Careful thought, planning and monitoring is required if a bull of another breed is to be grazed on public access land.
The short answer is to seek out specialist legal advice. There are two routes to winning this type of case: one is by proving the “keeper” of the cattle was negligent (at fault) and the other is establishing the criteria for strict liability (no fault liability) under the Animals Act 1971.
There are some statutory defences a defendant can rely on to defeat an Animals Act claim in certain circ*mstances. In the vast majority of cases, people who own cattle have public liability insurance and will be represented by their insurers or their appointed solicitors.
Farm workers inevitably know the risks of working with cows and practically all will have stories of accidents and near misses.
It is important to recognise that staff are entitled to claim compensation for injury caused by cows or otherwise. They are not barred from doing so just because they know the risks. The Animals Act recognises this and reduces the defences available to a defendant when an employee is injured in the course of their employment.
