How to deal with a farmer after his calf ran into the car causing damage

Annabananna

Last thusday a week yesterday my husband was driving along the road saw a farmer his wife and kid on the side of road and cows and calves going into a field so slowed down as he was slowing down a calf got spooked and ran head on into the car causing 3k damage to our car and killing himself.

The farmer at the time admitted he was in the wrong and would cover all repair cost to our car and he got the ball running and the insurance sent out an engineer to inspect the car yesterday.

However last night he came over and said that he was now not taking full cost for all the damage as he feels my husband was at fault for not stopping quicker now this happened on a national road speed limit 100km and they were partially hidden in a dip so my husband was doing around 20km when he hit the aanimal and 50 to 60km when he spotted them.

We now wondering how to deal with this as we feel that the farmer should not have been moving aniamls at 8pm when it almost dark with out flags refective clothing or some warning system.

Thanks for reading and any advice would be great

Procrastastudy

Charter - Legal advice cannot be sought for various reasons. However some pontification on driving for you;

Speed limits are exactly that; a limit. If he collided with something then he wasn't driving at an appropriate speed for the road conditions. If it had been a human he collided with you would now be on the receiving end of legal action.

Get in contact with your insurance and let them hammer out who is to blame thats what you pay them for.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Charter - Legal advice cannot be sought for various reasons. However some pontification on driving for you;

Speed limits are exactly that; a limit. If he collided with something then he wasn't driving at an appropriate speed for the road conditions. If it had been a human he collided with you would now be on the receiving end of legal action.

Get in contact with your insurance and let them hammer out who is to blame thats what you pay them for.

Ummmmm, there's a difference between driving at an appropriate speed when there's ice on the road vs driving on a dry road and a calf jumps at you.

Also, it would depend on where the human was if he hit one to determine if there was legal action against him. If the human was in the middle of the road then the driver could sue the pedestrian for damaging his car.

If the farmer has already put it through his insurance, it is no longer up to him to determine if he accepts fault or not. His insurance has control of the claim and will act as it sees fit. Let his and your insurance work it out.

Annabananna

OP thanks for you're reply i would hope that a human would not suddenly run at the car as this calf did and my husband was slowing down at the time as the farmer has admitted that my husband was almosted stopped. I know this is what we pay insurance for but my agrument is why should our no claims bonus be affected because a farmer decides to bring out black cows and calves at almost dark without any lights or reflective clothes if my husband had to be seriously hurt because of this are you saying it be his fault my understanding is that farmers are liabile for animals on the road especially when they are herding them accross the road.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

Ummmmm, there's a difference between driving at an appropriate speed when there's ice on the road vs driving on a dry road and a calf jumps at you.

Also, it would depend on where the human was if he hit one to determine if there was legal action against him. If the human was in the middle of the road then the driver could sue the pedestrian for damaging his car.

If the farmer has already put it through his insurance, it is no longer up to him to determine if he accepts fault or not. His insurance has control of the claim and will act as it sees fit. Let his and your insurance work it out.

I disagree based on the facts presented by the OP. However as we both know Tort is lots of fun with theses types of arguments. The OP has admitted they we're driving over a blind hill in the road at 60Kmh despite having seen a potential hazard. (Which incidentally OP makes your point on warnings moot - you saw them how would flashing lights help). If someone was crossing the road an the OP hit them I'm willing to bet the OPs insurance would be paying out.

Agreed in this scenario it was a spooked dumb animal however there is, imho, contributory negligence. It's probably 50/50 at best. Given the farmer's new position, and this is just a guess, it seems he may have already spoken to his insurance.

Annabananna wrote: »

OP thanks for you're reply i would hope that a human would not suddenly run at the car as this calf did and my husband was slowing down at the time as the farmer has admitted that my husband was almost stopped. I know this is what we pay insurance for but my argument is why should our no claims bonus be affected because a farmer decides to bring out black cows and calves at almost dark without any lights or reflective clothes if my husband had to be seriously hurt because of this are you saying it be his fault my understanding is that farmers are labile for animals on the road especially when they are herding them across the road.

Some of this is addressed above but obviously almost stopped is not stopped. If he was stopped and the calf had run into a stationary car the I would agree that he was the one liable. As for seeing them - you've admitted you did so I have to reiterate this is moot IMO. As for liability for herding animals on a road - it's not something I'm familiar with but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there is.

Annabananna

OP here sorry i should clear up the dip not in the road but the farmers were hidden by the hedge dip a dried up drain type so it was a straight road hubbie saw cows calves and one farmer ones that were slowing traffic were hidden in this dip on the road side and trees in frount of them that why i said teh farmer on the road should have had some light or refective clothes on

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I disagree based on the facts presented by the OP. However as we both know Tort is lots of fun with theses types of arguments. The OP has admitted they we're driving over a blind hill in the road at 60Kmh despite having seen a potential hazard. (Which incidentally OP makes your point on warnings moot - you saw them how would flashing lights help). If someone was crossing the road an the OP hit them I'm willing to bet the OPs insurance would be paying out.

Actually, this type of thing is pretty straight forward in the automobile insurance industry (though the subject matter is a bit unorthodox). I don't see the OP mention anything about her husband seeing them well in advance and it appears he was in the process of slowing down as soon as he saw them. Also, a driver cannot foresee a spooked calf.

If the farmer has already spoken to his insurance and his insurance has advised anything, he should not be the one "dropping in" to these people, but the adjusters should contact the OP directly. I wouldn't be quick to accept any liability in this situation.

50/50 contributory negligence does not exist. That turns the issue into one of causation.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, this type of thing is pretty straight forward in the automobile insurance industry (though the subject matter is a bit unorthodox). I don't see the OP mention anything about her husband seeing them well in advance and it appears he was in the process of slowing down as soon as he saw them. Also, a driver cannot foresee a spooked calf.

If the farmer has already spoken to his insurance and his insurance has advised anything, he should not be the one "dropping in" to these people, but the adjusters should contact the OP directly. I wouldn't be quick to accept any liability in this situation.

50/50 contributory negligence does not exist. That turns the issue into one of causation.

Yes agreed Seb sorry that was sloppily put. What I mean to say in non-legal terms it it seems to be there is fault on both sides. As for admitting liability of course the OP should not. If this exercise is worth anything it is perhaps pointing her in the direction of being very careful what she says to her insurance!

OP Seb is being too much of a gentleman to point out he's much farther down the line of qualifying than I (perhaps have now?) - I'm not even in second year undergrad yet. Even from that very small amount of experience I can say this - it's unlikely you'll get a clear cut answer. These things are arguable from both sides and require the specific facts to be well investigated. Maybe see what other people have to add - although I'm not sure it will change the position of letting your insurance deal with it and argue your corner the best you can.

Annabananna

Hey Seb65 we have recieved an letter dated the day after the accident stating that we were to have car inspected and also in big black letters on the side there are the words Without Prejudice.

We then got a call that an engineer was been sent out to examine car after they got an estimate this inspection happened yesterday.

We are confused as to why he called in to he reading between the lines he seems to want to place balme on my husband and to claim off our insurance for his calf but then he says it his broker and his friends who told him this is what happens in such cases and he doesnt want bad feeling about it

seb65

I'm not qualified to do anything, except maybe shopping. I'm certainly no gentleman.

OP, I know that, if this is your first experience with a claim, the process can be daunting. Do not be too concerned with the words "without prejudice". All initial investigation letters will have this, whether they end up paying the claim or not. The wording just, may we say, allows them to cover their a**es.

To clarify, did you get an inspection done and then the insurance company sent out their own engineer to inspect as well? If so, this is probably common practice here. Insurance companies like to verify claims by getting a few quotes from different garages. This cuts down on a claimant going to, say, his friend's garage and asking for an estimate, with the mutual agreement to bump up the price so his friend gets a little extra off the insurance company. A good insurance investigator will always get more than one quote, unless it is an approved garage by the insurance company.

If the farmer is just trying to extend good will, then so be it, but do not admit any liability. I am not sure what you mean by he said that his broker and friends say this is how its done. This is how what's done exactly?

littlemac1980

Annabananna wrote: »

Last thusday a week yesterday my husband was driving along the road saw a farmer his wife and kid on the side of road and cows and calves going into a field so slowed down as he was slowing down a calf got spooked and ran head on into the car causing 3k damage to our car and killing himself.

The farmer at the time admitted he was in the wrong and would cover all repair cost to our car and he got the ball running and the insurance sent out an engineer to inspect the car yesterday.

However last night he came over and said that he was now not taking full cost for all the damage as he feels my husband was at fault for not stopping quicker now this happened on a national road speed limit 100km and they were partially hidden in a dip so my husband was doing around 20km when he hit the aanimal and 50 to 60km when he spotted them.

We now wondering how to deal with this as we feel that the farmer should not have been moving aniamls at 8pm when it almost dark with out flags refective clothing or some warning system.

Thanks for reading and any advice would be great

Your situation sounds like one in which you should have a solicitor involved. I know it probably seems like there isn't enough money/damage involved to justify that, but you have to bear in mind the effect on your no-claims bonus, and potentially any treatment for injuries you may have suffered (though you haven't mentioned any as far as Im aware)

At the end of the day, it seems you are dealing directly with an insurance company and they are not admitting liability. The insurance company will have a very experienced legal department looking after their interests, you will be at a significant disadvantage continuing to deal with them without proper legal representation.

Annabananna

Hey the farmer's broker and his friends told him that his insurance should not have to pay all of our car repairs that our insurance company should cover some of it.

Re the good will thing he has us down as naive city people as he said ah ye city folk wouldnt undeerstand the need to move animals on the road. He nearly fell off the chair when i told him i was from a large farm and in fact i am fgrom around here he had done research found out we moved here from Dublin and as i go by my marriage name noone knew me as i be known by my maiden name. He then said why didnt i tell him who i was and he said i better be going and left.

Another development is I rang the farmers insurance to see what they had to say about this whole matter and wait for it they tell me to go but the car in the garage which is their approved centre and it be repaired and they cover all the costs. Now this is happy days but i thinking the farmer is trying to take back liability and the lady in the insurance company said he cant do this and she get on to his broker.

But here the really annoying bit because this crash happen and we have just paid for a second car been insured by my husband and me as a named driver as i have just starting driving but because he using his no claims bonus to get a lower rate this is causing a delay with new policy due to it been an protential open case on policy ahhhhhh.

Annabananna

hey will i got a call from the farmers insurance and they are saying that we can get our car repaired and to book it in.

She then goes on to say that this issue is settled but the farmer can still claim off our insurance for his calf.

I rang our insurance and they say that cant see how the company would agree to pay out on that as if it was 50/50 then they pay for our car not his calf.

This case is getter messy and on top of it all i have had to insurance the second car in my name costing us 600e a year more then we had got quoted but because of this claim we been refused the other option

monkeypants

If the farmer was present when this happened, should the calf not have been under his control?

Annabananna

Hey thanks for all your feedback.

Our car went in yesterday to be fixed and his insurance company is paying for it.

We have heard no more on whether he is claiming fro his calf.

But i did ring aviva telling them that i was 600e out of pocket because of this whole thing so maybe that got back to the farmer

Nugget89

I'm not going to mention anything about the legal side of this because I have no idea, but for everyone else who see's a farmer on the road with animals, 20km is nowhere near slow enough.

Gurgle

Annabananna wrote: »

saw a farmer his wife and kid on the side of road and cows and calves going into a field so slowed down as he was slowing down a calf got spooked and ran head on into the car causing 3k damage to our car and killing himself.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a30

PART V. ANIMALS ON ROADS.

Driver's duty when passing animals
30. A driver meeting or overtaking an animal on a road shall either reduce speed or halt the vehicle, if requested to do so (whether by signal or otherwise) by a person in charge of the animal.

Duties of drover
31.—(1) A person in charge of an animal which is being driven along or on to a road shall take all reasonable steps to ensure—

(a) that the animal does not obstruct other traffic or a pedestrian,

(b) that, save when being driven to or from land or premises, the animal is not on a cycle track or footway, and

(c) that traffic overtaking the animal has room to do so in safety.

(2) In this bye-law " driven " means conducted without a rein or lead.

Horses to be led on right side of road

32. A person leading a horse along a roadway shall, notwithstanding any other provision of these bye-laws, do so on the right side of the roadway.

Duties of drovers in darkness
33. During lighting-up hours a person in charge of animals on a road shall so carry, as to be likely to warn other road users of the presence of the animals, a lamp showing a white light visible for a reasonable distance in the direction in which the animals are travelling and a red light visible for a reasonable distance in the opposite direction.

Was it before lighting up hours?