Collision with an out swinging farm gate on the road

PixarSketch

Hi
My father arrived home from work today saying he crashed his van into an out swinging gate of a field. The gate swung out and reached out on to the road as my father was driving by. Just wondering has anything similar happened to anybody and what is his legal position with regards to the repairs needed?

He contacted the farmer who owns the gate/field and his response was "you should have stayed at the scene" and basically not the farmers problem. My father took pictures of both van and gate (which ended on the ground) and is now gone to contact the guards

Thanks folks

Icepick

He needs to talk to his insurance company.

PixarSketch

Icepick wrote: »

He needs to talk to his insurance company.

Thanks Icepick, that was suggested to him, but wouldn't that affect his no claims? The damage is roughly €600 (dents along passenger side body) He has never had a tip in his life and highlighting this collision would affect NCB

saltyjack silverblade

Read the little book that comes with the insurance. I had a door badly damaged last year in a car park and was worried about the NCB. Turns out my insurance allowed me to make one claim every five years that would not affect the NCB. I had to pay the first 70euro of it. Pretty sweet deal. There may be something similar in your own insurance policy that you are just not aware of yet.

PixarSketch

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

Read the little book that comes with the insurance. I had a door badly damaged last year in a car park and was worried about the NCB. Turns out my insurance allowed me to make one claim every five years that would not affect the NCB. I had to pay the first 70euro of it. Pretty sweet deal. There may be something similar in your own insurance policy that you are just not aware of yet.

Really!! I'll let him know that and check it out, thanks for that

Rho b

Does the landowner/farmer not have a duty of care to ensure that the gate is the correct size for the field opening so that if it does happen to swing open that it does not have the capacity to cause an accident.
Only reason that I ask is that I was a witness to a similar incident a few years ago. The car in front of my was struck by a gate that swung open onto the road. The landowner paid for the repair costs to the man's car. I noticed a few weeks later that the landowner got the large single gate replaced with two smaller ones.

PixarSketch

Rho b wrote: »

Does the landowner/farmer not have a duty of care to ensure that the gate is the correct size for the field opening so that if it does happen to swing open that it does not have the capacity to cause an accident.
Only reason that I ask is that I was a witness to a similar incident a few years ago. The car in front of my was struck by a gate that swung open onto the road. The landowner paid for the repair costs to the man's car. I noticed a few weeks later that the landowner got the large single gate replaced with two smaller ones.

Or at the very least have the gate inswinging, what if it happened as someone was walking along the road as the gate swung out, serious injury or worse i'd imagine. I think my father is more angry at the farmers flippant response rather than the actual damage

Kristopherus

Rho b wrote: »

Does the landowner/farmer not have a duty of care to ensure that the gate is the correct size for the field opening so that if it does happen to swing open that it does not have the capacity to cause an accident.
Only reason that I ask is that I was a witness to a similar incident a few years ago. The car in front of my was struck by a gate that swung open onto the road. The landowner paid for the repair costs to the man's car. I noticed a few weeks later that the landowner got the large single gate replaced with two smaller ones.

IMO you have a very valid point. OP , the farmer acted the muppet in dismissing your father's point of view the way he did. He, and he alone, is responsible for allowing the gate to swing out in that manner. Your father should report the incident to the local Gardai. He should also get the farmer's insurance details. This incident appears to be a Public Liability issue.

PixarSketch

Kristopherus wrote: »

IMO you have a very valid point. OP , the farmer acted the muppet in dismissing your father's point of view the way he did. He, and he alone, is responsible for allowing the gate to swing out in that manner. Your father should report the incident to the local Gardai. He should also get the farmer's insurance details. This incident appears to be a Public Liability issue.

He's at the Guards still (for the past 45mins). My dads attitude is, if you break it...fix it, nothing more and its all forgotten about. But the "shoulder shrugging" answer he got from the farmer has sent him potty.

HeidiHeidi

PixarSketch wrote: »

He's at the Guards still (for the past 45mins). My dads attitude is, if you break it...fix it, nothing more and its all forgotten about. But the "shoulder shrugging" answer he got from the farmer has sent him potty.

As it would me

I nearly had a similar accident the other day - towing a trailer a bit wider than the car, I was on a narrowish country road, came around a bend, and there was a big green gate hanging open into the middle of the road. It wasn't a farm gate, it was into water works or a power plant or something like that. Whatever way it was, it was incredibly hard to judge how far out it was blocking the road - I had to inch by to make sure the trailer wouldn't drag it. Not a sign of anybody near it, or rushing to close it.

I was going relatively slowly due to the trailer - I could easily see someone else driving normal speed coming around the bend and straight into it :eek:

Hope your father gets some satisfaction from that farmer, his (the farmer's) attitude stinks.

PixarSketch

Thanks all, will let ye know how he gets on when he arrives back from the Guards

Pat Mustard

PixarSketch wrote: »

He's at the Guards still (for the past 45mins). My dads attitude is, if you break it...fix it, nothing more and its all forgotten about. But the "shoulder shrugging" answer he got from the farmer has sent him potty.

Less shoulder shrugging and more cheque writing or it's off to see the solicitor, I suggest.

PixarSketch

The Mustard wrote: »

Less shoulder shrugging and more cheque writing or it's off to see the solicitor, I suggest.

Last resort but if it needs be then i'd agree, that's the road he'll have to go down.

Del2005

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

Read the little book that comes with the insurance. I had a door badly damaged last year in a car park and was worried about the NCB. Turns out my insurance allowed me to make one claim every five years that would not affect the NCB. I had to pay the first 70euro of it. Pretty sweet deal. There may be something similar in your own insurance policy that you are just not aware of yet.

Protected NCBs are a con for small claims. Usually the only company who will recognize that you have a full NCB is your current company, so you're stuck with them for 5 years, and since you've made a claim your insurance risk has increased so your premium may go up.

Santa Cruz

Rho b wrote: »

Does the landowner/farmer not have a duty of care to ensure that the gate is the correct size for the field opening so that if it does happen to swing open that it does not have the capacity to cause an accident.
Only reason that I ask is that I was a witness to a similar incident a few years ago. The car in front of my was struck by a gate that swung open onto the road. The landowner paid for the repair costs to the man's car. I noticed a few weeks later that the landowner got the large single gate replaced with two smaller ones.

I believe that you have summed it up very well. There is of course a duty of care which would appear not to have been met by the farmer. In a civil case on balance of probabilities your father would succeed.

saltyjack silverblade

Del2005 wrote: »

Protected NCBs are a con for small claims. Usually the only company who will recognize that you have a full NCB is your current company, so you're stuck with them for 5 years, and since you've made a claim your insurance risk has increased so your premium may go up.

Nope the insurance never went up and all other companies recognised this when I went looking for other quotes. I ultimately stayed with the company even though they were 10euro more expensive. simply because I didn't want the hassle of switching. :rolleyes:

The Dagda

PixarSketch wrote: »

Hi
My father arrived home from work today saying he crashed his van into an out swinging gate of a field. The gate swung out and reached out on to the road as my father was driving by. Just wondering has anything similar happened to anybody and what is his legal position with regards to the repairs needed?

He contacted the farmer who owns the gate/field and his response was "you should have stayed at the scene" and basically not the farmers problem. My father took pictures of both van and gate (which ended on the ground) and is now gone to contact the guards

Thanks folks

So your father wasn't paying attention and drove into a gate? Get him off the road.

Rho b

The Dagda wrote: »

So your father wasn't paying attention and drove into a gate? Get him off the road.

My grand Aunt in law was killed when a bullock jumped out of a field in front of her car. The bullock's front legs went through the windscreen and unfortunately one of the hooves pierced her chest.
She was on her way to the local national school to collect her three children (two girls and a boy).
Some might say she was not paying attention to the road!

Cody Pomeray

I tried answering the OP in some way that would not resemble legal advice but it's impossible to know what kind of response can be given

Find an authority or seek legal advice on issues that apply to nuisance-negligence overlap on the highway. consider issues like weather conditions (strong winds), right of way, etc.

You could look at
Fletcher v. Rylands L.R. 1 Ex. 265
Palmer v. Bateman [1908] 2 I.R. 393

Victor

There may be a council / planning permission issue with the gate swinging out.

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

Read the little book that comes with the insurance. I had a door badly damaged last year in a car park and was worried about the NCB. Turns out my insurance allowed me to make one claim every five years that would not affect the NCB. I had to pay the first 70euro of it. Pretty sweet deal. There may be something similar in your own insurance policy that you are just not aware of yet.

This is likely to only protect the NCB with this insurer, not with other insurers.

brian_t

The Dagda wrote: »

So your father wasn't paying attention and drove into a gate? Get him off the road.

The gate swung out as his father was driving by. Read the OPs post properly.

The Dagda

Rho b wrote: »

My grand Aunt in law was killed when a bullock jumped out of a field in front of her car. The bullock's front legs went through the windscreen and unfortunately one of the hooves pierced her chest.
She was on her way to the local national school to collect her three children (two girls and a boy).
Some might say she was not paying attention to the road!

That is a tragic story and you have my condolences.

A moving animal is not the same as an inanimate object.

The Dagda

brian_t wrote: »

The gate swung out as his father was driving by. Read the OPs post properly.

I doubt the veracity of the OP's story.

The photos only prove one thing, he hit the gate. The farmer could easily claim that HE wants recompense for the damage to his gate. It is going to end up as one word against another.

Pat Mustard

The Dagda wrote: »

It is going to end up as one word against another.

Photos show plenty of things; visible damage, the relative positions of gates versus roads, visibility of objects from different locations, all sorts really.

According to you, the evidence should play out as the word of man who was present at the scene of an accident versus the word of another man who was not there.

If you are going to be deliberately unhelpful to the OP, perhaps you could try to make it more convincing, or at least, more entertaining.

234

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Find an authority or seek legal advice on issues that apply to nuisance-negligence overlap on the highway. consider issues like weather conditions (strong winds), right of way, etc.

You could look at
Fletcher v. Rylands L.R. 1 Ex. 265
Palmer v. Bateman [1908] 2 I.R. 393

I thought Ryanlds v Fletcher only applied to non-natural/hazardous use. I don't think a gate qualifies.

Cody Pomeray

I mention it on the basis that a gate adjacent to the highway may be said to be an inherently dangerous thing if let out of control. Partially because one of the very objects of the gate is to secure the highway from wandering animals which are stupid to traffic, but also because it is a dangerous piece of metal even when the field is empty... especially where it swings out onto the road.

Rylands may not apply to an inward swinging gate.

Admittedly I have no authorities for this !

234

I think that part of the underlying justification for the enhanced standard in Rylands is that unusually dangerous activities should attract a heightened level of liability. I really don't that that something as everyday as a gate would qualify. After all, all agriculture involves a certain level of danger, but it's a familiar danger.

For me, occupiers liability would be more relevant, applying the common law presumption that the limits of your property extend into the middle of the road.

gctest50

The Dagda wrote: »

..............
The photos only prove one thing, he hit the gate. ............

The Mustard wrote: »

Photos show plenty of things; visible damage, the relative positions of gates versus roads, visibility of objects from different locations, all sorts really.......

Still just photos though

Pat Mustard

gctest50 wrote: »

Still just photos though

Which is why the person who took them will usually be in court to present them, unless the opposing side consents to admit them into evidence without formal proof of same.

Cody Pomeray

234 wrote: »

I think that part of the underlying justification for the enhanced standard in Rylands is that unusually dangerous activities should attract a heightened level of liability. I really don't that that something as everyday as a gate would qualify. After all, all agriculture involves a certain level of danger, but it's a familiar danger.

For me, occupiers liability would be more relevant, applying the common law presumption that the limits of your property extend into the middle of the road.

As a farmer's son, I have to say I think of an outward swinging gate as an unusually stupid, if not indeed dangerous, hazard on the public road. It should only be used at a regularly trod crossing junction, for example where cows coming out of a milking parlour and into an adjoining yard across the road. A series of iron bars which ordinarily swing into the highway are deserving of special care and maintenance.

So although I wouldn't exclude Rylands, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you either. I would only put Rylands forward as one of the items to consider. In any event, outside a legal discussion forum, I accept the matter at hand is probably straightforward enough without needing to make life compicated.

Cody Pomeray

Out of curiosity, does anyone have in their old notes, or know of, a list of strict liability torts?

234

Any intentional tort.

Liability for damage caused by dogs is another.

I'm sure there are more.

Bepolite

England and Wales has strict liability for obstructions on the highway, not so in Ireland.

Rylands requires something unnatural/not generally on the land doesn't it? Tort is a fuzzy memory at this stage. I'm pretty sure Rylands is a bit of a stretch in this scenario.

Cody Pomeray

Bepolite wrote: »

England and Wales has strict liability for obstructions on the highway, not so in Ireland.

Are you basing that on the mere absence of authority, or on some authoritative source?

I don't know of any Ireland-specific qualifiers to Rylands.

234 wrote: »

Any intentional tort.

Liability for damage caused by dogs is another.

I'm sure there are more.

Dogs worrying livestock is the only one from the top of my head.

Rylands, yeah, but rylands is not a tort in itself.

Bepolite

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Are you basing that on the mere absence of authority, or on some authoritative source?

Vague recollections... very vague!

Victor

Bepolite wrote: »

Rylands requires something unnatural

Do you see many gates growing on trees?

While an in-swinging gate may not be particularly hazardous, an out swinging one it.

131spanner

A similar story happened on our farm a good few years back. A gate swung out in front of a passing car, caused around £300 damage IIRC. The car was repaired, bills passed on to us here and a check was signed by my auld fella. No mention of guards, solicitor or any of the rest.

brian_t

Victor wrote: »

Do you see many gates growing on trees?

While an in-swinging gate may not be particularly hazardous, an out swinging one it.

I don't know if folk are getting gates mixed with up with doors.

Most farm gates that I know off actually swing both ways.

Cody Pomeray

Most? On the public road? That's not my experience.

Ordinarily, the pier will be constructed in such a way as to prevent the gate 'over-reaching' onto the road. Or else the gate will be below the level of the road, so the gate physically cannot swing out, unless lifted. Or else it will not swing freely on its hinges.

If you're taking machinery or cattle into a field, it doesn't make sense to construct a gate so as it swings outward, quite freely. You're only making more work for yourself, and creating an un-necessary risk for road users, and for livestock. Why would anyone build that sort of gate, except out of laziness?

Bepolite

Victor wrote: »

Do you see many gates growing on trees?

While an in-swinging gate may not be particularly hazardous, an out swinging one it.

I'll dig out the definition of Rylands later but I'm 99% sure a gate wont count. It needs to be an acumilation, with in control and breach etc. I'll also dig out that authorty for the highway in E&W

PixarSketch

Original Poster here

Sorry for the delayed update, my father was advised by the Guards that it was a civil matter as nobody was hurt and to contact his insurance company, he did and they advised him to contact a solicitor as if they were to get involved it would most certainly have a future affect on his premium/ncb .
My father contacted his solicitor and arranged a meeting with him on Tuesday next. Since that phone call, he received a call from the farmers insurance company, so say " we are aware of the incident and representative dealing with the case will be in contact later this evening" that call came yesterday, Friday, and my father was expecting the "representative" to call back, but no call arrived. He updated his solicitor on this and was told if no further contact was made from the insurance company by Monday, he (the solicitor) would proceed with formally contacting the insurance company himself, as he now has the details of the company representing the farmer.
All n all at least the farmer has at the very least now acknowledged the complainant and things are moving towards a conclusion.
Since the incident, the offending gate has been reattached to its pillar/post and a padlock fitted.
Thank you all for yere comments and advice