Dog blinded by farmers chemicals.......

[Duff1]

Sorry DES8 I'm confused...Is a definitive right of way not the same as OS map...which my local council say they can't find. Is it indeed my
local council who should be taking some responsibility or not. They won't/can't help. Not sure who I would right to regarding the farmer.
Are 'public footpath' signs not proof enough.????
It's not so much a farm but a disused rifle range with lake. I've been told who owns the land, but again don't know where to take this next.

[islandgirl]

Is the path on the OS map as a footpath? Local council will not get involved in my opinion.

[des8]

Not in full agreement with you there islandgirl

The owners of private property have a duty of care to anyone who may be on their land, with or without permission.
Have a look at Occupiers Liability Act 1984 which covers that duty iro trespassers.

On the other hand it would seem that even if this path is not on the definitive maps, the occupier is aware that people use it, and has not forbidden its use
This would make people using the path "visitors" and therefore duty of care is covered by Occupiers liability act 1957

[islandgirl]

I can see that point of view Des8 and you know more than me about this area but I am married to a farmer so see it from another side. If what you say is correct then farmers could never use any chemicals on their private land for fear that there may be a trespasser lurking. Trespassers have no right to be on the land but it is not, of course, a criminal offence unless they damage crops. I am aware that a thief who falls through your roof can sue you though!

[islandgirl]

This is interesting https://www.nfuonline.com/good-neigh...ive_farmer-a5/

[des8]

Regarding the liability towards trespassers:
The duty of care exists when the occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger concerned, or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger. (Occupiers Liability act 1984)

Obviously modern farming methods require farmers to spray, but they need to take care
There is of course a reciprocal duty for visitors not to put themselves in the way of danger
The liability under the 1984 act does not extend to property so possibly vet bills not covered

However if it is a public Right of Way the farmer cannot close it and if the public continue to use it he must stop spraying temporarily. His liability extends to property damage in this case.

[islandgirl]

Yes absolutely. Of course farmers need to take care and visitors need to be careful. I agree with all the above. Though if it were private land and people should not enter it the farmer would not have any reasonable grounds to believe they would be there in my opinion!

[Duff1]

Hi Des8./Islandgirl....The final email from the Director of Environment states they have "No powers to regulate this activity as a local authority" That the signed footpath I was walking on is not recorded as a public right of way.

[des8]

Well it is your decision, but as a start I would be considering a letter as per post 16.

You said you were on a path signposted as a public footpath
The tractor was driving towards you.

Under those circumstances the driver IMO should have been aware of your presence and temporarily ceased spreading noxious chemicals.

[Duff1]

I absoutely agree with you......I'll go back to post 16 and try again. Many thanks.

[islandgirl]

I still believe this is nothing to do with the local council. Let us know what happens please.