Car insurance and hitting a farm animal on the road

[trainspanner]

Hello everyone, hopefully you’ve come to read this as you want to know what happens next or better yet you already know for sure what should happen next, because I don’t!

Please save the pi$$taking until its resolved as this keeping me up at night at the moment.

At around 2am saturday morning I hit a sheep on an unlit 60mph section of B road, it also happened in a slight curve - all of which meant I had no reaction time and hit the bleater full on, the animal was a write off and considerable damage to my car. I took photos of the scene and of the animals ear tag to trace the owner, and reported all this to the police who attended to clear up.

My insurer have instantly taken the stance that this will be a ‘fault claim’ on my insurance with a large excess to pay and impact on future insurance cost despite my explanation of events and the fact that farmers are responsible for maintaining their boundaries and animal enclosures to prevent this potentially fatal accident from happening, and as such the farmer should also have Public Liability Insurance for exactly this - surely its in my insurers interest to also put this on the farmer to save them the large repair bill or worse yet, a write off pending inspection? you would think...

I feel I have had to do a lot of the work for the insurer in addition to the basics, gathering details of things like the attending PC, the animals ear tag number, speaking to DEFRA who gave me a phone number for the insurer to call to trace the farmer, uploading photos of everything and getting all the right people talking to each other, all the while they have been difficult to contact, closed on a sunday and failed to provide me with a courtesy car quick enough (happened saturday morning and I should finally get one wednesday) and my workplace is rightly getting annoyed.
This is a well known and reputable insurer not some unknowns who were cheapest on Compare-the-thingy.

After countless emails and calls to my insurer they have now properly understood my side of things and are now going to investigate further (to their benifit as well as mine) and according to them im now looking at two possible outcomes;

1. My insurer successfully makes contact with the farmer and their insurer to recover all costs including my excess, as their negligence (unintended im sure) could have killed someone.

2. They are unable to trace the negligent party or unable to act against them and I literally take the blame on my policy (their words!) and take the financial hit.

I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience and has anything (good or bad) to say?
No wild speculation please as this is a fact-finding mission, I want to be armed with the right knowledge, if you know from experience or being involved with farming or insurance that it should go this way or that then please tell us all why, and thank you in advance.


*EDIT* I am of course grateful that I didn’t have time to react and possibly swerve into oncoming traffic, and that my kids were not in the car, and that the animal didn’t suffer and that the insurer will repair the car but, that doesn’t mean Im not entitled to have this incident - which I could do absolutely nothing to avoid - not go against me financially in the future, and persueing this may mean that something is done at this farm to prevent it happening again in the future, possible worse.

[Saint-Just]

Even if it ends up not costing your insurance company a penny, you can rest assured that your premium will increase on renewal. Something to do with an increased risk of accident. Or so they claim.

[unclealec]

The insurers never lose any opportunity to remind us that it is a no-claim discount, not a no-blame discount. I am sure no-one is or would blame you, but if you make a claim on your policy I'm afraid you lose some or all of your no-claim discount irrespective of it not being your fault.

[mitch1956]

negligence is the key word here, it will down to you/ your insurers the farmer was negligent not a easy thing to prove, theses are amimals, and unless the farmer failed to matin its enclosure and how you prove that will be interesting, if the animal got out of the enlocure of its own cunning :-) or someone let the animal out without the farmer knowlage etc etc then you aint winning a negligence claim.

[langdalematt]

Exact same thing happened to me. I found who the farmer was and claimed on his liability insurance without losing my NCB

[manganr]

I'd be contacting the ombudsman about the case. How can you be liable for a stray sheep? Fight your corner. Insurance companies prey on people who roll over and take it.

[jaytip]

Does the road you were on have any signs showing that there may be sheep on the road? If so there is probably nothing you can do as you had been warned.

[trainspanner]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Exact same thing happened to me. I found who the farmer was and claimed on his liability insurance without losing my NCB

This is what I thought should happen, depends if the insurer do attempt to act on my behalf here or just take the cheaper option.

Does the road you were on have any signs showing that there may be sheep on the road? If so there is probably nothing you can do as you had been warned.

No signs in this area for farm animals etc, its quite a busy road on the edge of a city in England, not like the Scottish highlands for example where they are permitted to roam. Having driven down the road again since I have noticed a farm here but none of the fields have sheep in...

negligence is the key word here, it will down to you/ your insurers the farmer was negligent not a easy thing to prove, theses are amimals, and unless the farmer failed to matin its enclosure and how you prove that will be interesting, if the animal got out of the enlocure of its own cunning :-) or someone let the animal out without the farmer knowlage etc etc then you aint winning a negligence claim.

I agree negligence is key, and this is exactly what I believe has happened, failure to contain the animal proof of which is my GPS tagged photo of his animal in a heap on the road. The exact details of how it got out - cunning etc should still come under their Public Liabilty Insurance?

[Rapid 17]

Many years ago I worked on a turkey farm which was next door to a dairy farm. One afternoon after finishing work I was driving past the dairy farm and the farm dog which had a habit of chasing and barking at passing cars rand down a bank and head butted my car. The force of impact knocked the dog out and left a large dent in the nearside passenger door. Long story short, the farmer's insurers paid for my car to be repaired and the the dog never again chased a passing car.

[AKM]

You don't want to hear this, I wasn't there and I don't know what speed you were doing, but if your concern is losing your no claims bonus, this could have been significantly worse.

You'll need to prove negligence on the part of the farmer / whoever maintains the fence, barrier etc. that keeps the livestock out of the road.

Though I'm uneasy about you feeling 'entitled not to have had the accident', though perhaps I've misunderstood as I certainly wasn't there nor behind the wheel, and the sheep could have bolted in front of you and, you might have been driving slower than the maximum speed permitted due to the lighting conditions.

Insurers regard how an individual's behaviour affects the risk as the moral hazard which is different from who's at fault. If you're driving at sufficient speed, on a unlit road, that if there's anything lying in the road around the next bend you're going to hit it, then imagine a motorcyclist who's fallen off, or a pedestrian - the consequences wouldn't be an easy thing for anyone to live with, nor could they argue that they were completely blameless as they were entitled to be the only road user at the time of the collision - the upshot is that if you're successful in 'not being at fault' and all the costs are recovered from another party, the insurer may still add a small premium increase due to the claim being a 'risk factor'.

It could have been worse. I sympathise with the worry over potential loss of no claims - for a decade, my premiums were in the thousands and for crappy cars too, as I had: one car written off in a flood; one car written off as it was hit whilst parked; and another car that my girlfriend crashed on my insurance, whilst I wasn't in it.

As if that wasn't enough, I also hit a cyclist at a junction in heavy rain and in the dark - he was dressed entirely in black and had a single green LED light, and appeared from either alongside or behind a parked car. It all happened so fast, I didn't see him. Fortunately the cyclist wasn't badly hurt. The Police decided it was a 'genuine accident' and didn't prosecute, my insurance paid for new bicycle. Regardless of how I rationalise it, I now take more time at junctions and am on the look out for those ninja cyclists.

Edit: does your policy include legal expenses and could you use that to pursue the third party?

[Bluehase284]

I'm sorry to say but as someone with significant connections in the motor insurance legal sector - this is 100% your 'fault' in the legal sense.

On UK roads you as the driver always have the responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see.

If it was a curve, at night etc. then those factors should have meant you reduced speed.

Take this example - what if in the same location there had been a cyclist stopped with a puncture, or a horse rider stationary? If you had hit either of them then you would be at fault.

The fact you hit a non road user does not change that.

Yes the farmer should keep them enclosed, but you also need to drive with 'due care and attention' - which if used you could always stop in time for an obstruction.

We all know that most of us often drive faster than that - but by doing so we take a risk. This time you got unlucky - but it really could have been a cyclist or horse and a human life lost.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but do expect any insurance of the farmer to push back and argue you were guilty of driving with undue care and attention...

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Andyg]

I'm sorry to say but as someone with significant connections in the motor insurance legal sector - this is 100% your 'fault' in the legal sense.

On UK roads you as the driver always have the responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see.

If it was a curve, at night etc. then those factors should have meant you reduced speed.

Take this example - what if in the same location there had been a cyclist stopped with a puncture, or a horse rider stationary? If you had hit either of them then you would be at fault.

The fact you hit a non road user does not change that.

Yes the farmer should keep them enclosed, but you also need to drive with 'due care and attention' - which if used you could always stop in time for an obstruction.

We all know that most of us often drive faster than that - but by doing so we take a risk. This time you got unlucky - but it really could have been a cyclist or horse and a human life lost.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but do expect any insurance of the farmer to push back and argue you were guilty of driving with undue care and attention...

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Whilst I agree with some of your points, I cannot believe that it’s totally correct. I was once in a car which was hit by a horse. The car was stationary at the time and it was the horse that hit us. So who is liable. The Horse, the rider or the car owner? According to you it’s the car owner!

Also the farmer does have a responsibility to maintain their fences, hedgerow, etc, however I imagine there are exceptions like in the New Forest or Forest of Dean (where wild stock wander free.)

Finally you wrote about ”location” as if it was appropriate - what if the driver was on a dual carriageway or motorway when a sheep or cow decided to cross the road? Surely the farmer has a duty of care, not just to their animals but also to general public - blaming the driver in all instances is simply not accurate.

OP there is an excellent Law and Plod forum on Pistonheads (which lots of servicing police officers contribute) which you might want to have a look at.

[Bluehase284]

Whilst I agree with some of your points, I cannot believe that it’s totally correct. I was once in a car which was hit by a horse. The car was stationary at the time and it was the horse that hit us. So who is liable. The Horse, the rider or the car owner? According to you it’s the car owner!

Also the farmer does have a responsibility to maintain their fences, hedgerow, etc, however I imagine there are exceptions like in the New Forest or Forest of Dean (where wild stock wander free.)

Finally you wrote about ”location” as if it was appropriate - what if the driver was on a dual carriageway or motorway when a sheep or cow decided to cross the road? Surely the farmer has a duty of care, not just to their animals but also to general public - blaming the driver in all instances is simply not accurate.

OP there is an excellent Law and Plod forum on Pistonheads (which lots of servicing police officers contribute) which you might want to have a look at.

Hi Andy I agree with almost everything you have said!

-I an not saying the car driver is at fault in every case. But every road user is required to use the road with due care, including horse riders. All road users need to be ready to stop for obstructions in the road, be it a stationary car, person or animal. So in your case of being stationary and hit by a rider then the rider is at fault.

-Location and conditions are relevant as they alter what is considered 'reasonable due care'. B roads with blind bends are roads where it is reasonable to expect occasional obstructions and to occasionally need to conduct an emergency stop. Motorways and dual carriages have significantly greater forward visibility that enables them.

- Of course if the obstruction/animal stepped out in front of you on any road the case is a bit different as despite due care on your part an occurrence that could not have been mitigated by you lead to an accident.
My understanding from the OP is that this is not the case, and that he came around the corner to find the sheep already standing in the road as a stationary object.

-Of course the Famer has a duty to all to keep their farms enclosed. They would be expected to act reasonably and inspect all fences regularly. They are responsible for the animal being loose - but that alone would not have lead to a crash if the road user had been able to stop within the distance they can see.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Artistmike]

I had exactly the same experience when I hit a sheep wandering on the highway and which resulted in my car being written off, after hitting it I careered into a stone wall. The farmer accepted full responsibility and his insurers paid for my new car, so I was happy.

On normal highways a farmer has a responsibility to ensure his stock is safely enclosed.

[trainspanner]

*UPDATE*

Ok so after reading some of the comments on here I decided to set out and prove the farmers negligence and believe I have done just that;

I knocked on some doors in the area, neighbouring farmers, low and behold they know all about it, that some sheep escaped in the early hours of saturday morning and one was hit. I found out exactly where the animals were kept at the time and took photos of hedges with gaps in allowing a determined sheep to get out easily enough.

Turns out this ‘farmer’ has sheep all over the place, begs/borrows/steels land to keep them on these days and the landowner in this case was nice enough to tell me all this and give me the guys number (which he isn’t answering so far).

So in addition to the animals ear tag for traceability, I have now gone and done the tracing for the insurer and taken photo’s of how and where they escaped. The landowner even said if Police/Insurers call he will explain that yes indeed sheep did escape the land at that time and the owner was warned so be could come and round them up!

Having forwarded all this on to my insurer, my only concern now surely, is that he isn’t insured, lets wait and see.

Oh and I know I asked for all comments good or bad but, for Mr AKM who wrote ‘Though I'm uneasy about you feeling 'entitled not to have had the accident'’ - you sir win the award for the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. Im sorry if I made you feel ‘uneasy’ by trying to fight my corner and not lose out financially through someone else’s (now) obvious negligence! Give your head a wobble.

[Maysie]

I'm sorry to say but as someone with significant connections in the motor insurance legal sector - this is 100% your 'fault' in the legal sense.

On UK roads you as the driver always have the responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see.

If it was a curve, at night etc. then those factors should have meant you reduced speed.

Take this example - what if in the same location there had been a cyclist stopped with a puncture, or a horse rider stationary? If you had hit either of them then you would be at fault.

The fact you hit a non road user does not change that.

Yes the farmer should keep them enclosed, but you also need to drive with 'due care and attention' - which if used you could always stop in time for an obstruction.

We all know that most of us often drive faster than that - but by doing so we take a risk. This time you got unlucky - but it really could have been a cyclist or horse and a human life lost.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but do expect any insurance of the farmer to push back and argue you were guilty of driving with undue care and attention...

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

This is how I see it too. Crashing into a sheep at 60mph with no ability to hit the brakes suggests you were driving too fast for the road conditions.

Rhetorical question: do you believe you would be any more or less to blame if what you crashed into was a:
Sheep
Dog walker
Small child
Horse
?

[trainspanner]

This is how I see it too. Crashing into a sheep at 60mph with no ability to hit the brakes suggests you were driving too fast for the road conditions.

Rhetorical question: do you believe you would be any more or less to blame if what you crashed into was a:
Sheep
Dog walker
Small child
Horse
?

I never said I was doing 60mph, I said it was a 60mph unlit B road to set the scene, I was doing 60 or less on the straight and slowed down for the curve, perfectly reasonable driving for anyone and I challenge anyone who says they honestly slow down to say 15mph? as some are illuding to with their description of driving to the conditions and being able to stop in the distance you can see, we are digressing here, the question was about liabilty and my driving was within the law and highway code.

The point about it being a horse or child etc is moving the goalposts somewhat, there are no pavements, no towns or villages in the immediate vicinity, nothing for miles, again you don’t crawl around all bends in the road looking for a child or horse are 2am, or even during daylight for that matter! you slow down yes, and I did.

Can that be the end of the nit-picking and wondering off down rabbit-holes now?

I did say I was looking for informed opinions good or bad, there has been some waffle! but I thank you all anyway.

[Maysie]

I never said I was doing 60mph, I said it was a 60mph unlit B road to set the scene, I was doing 60 or less on the straight and slowed down for the curve, perfectly reasonable driving for anyone and I challenge anyone who says they honestly slow down to say 15mph? as some are illuding to with their description of driving to the conditions and being able to stop in the distance you can see, we are digressing here, the question was about liabilty and my driving was within the law and highway code.

The point about it being a horse or child etc is moving the goalposts somewhat, there are no pavements, no towns or villages in the immediate vicinity, nothing for miles, again you don’t crawl around all bends in the road looking for a child or horse are 2am, or even during daylight for that matter! you slow down yes, and I did.

Can that be the end of the nit-picking and wondering off down rabbit-holes now?

I did say I was looking for informed opinions good or bad, there has been some waffle! but I thank you all anyway.

You asked for opinions, and I gave you mine.

If you don't like it, then ignore it but it will remain my opinion.

You crashed your car into a stationary object because you were driving at a speed where you were unable to react.

If you don't like to read opinions which disagree with your own 'no fault' conclusion, then don't canvas opinion.

As I understand it the laws do not change whether it is 2am or midday, so crashing into a person/animal (or whatever) which is standing on the roadside (where there are no pavements available) still leaves you responsible for your own actions. Clearly you do not agree and that is fine, as liability is a separate thing entirely and finding the grey line between legal black and white is what lawyers make a lot of money doing.

I hope you get it sorted, but you are not blameless in this episode and that is the point I was making.

[ernestrome]

imagine you are driving at 25 mph and someone simply steps off the curb or runs out between two cars immediately in front of you. Your fault or theirs?

[Andyg]

This is how I see it too. Crashing into a sheep at 60mph with no ability to hit the brakes suggests you were driving too fast for the road conditions.

Rhetorical question: do you believe you would be any more or less to blame if what you crashed into was a:
Sheep
Dog walker
Small child
Horse
?

Eh, rhetorical or not, its not pertinent because it’s not totally dependant upon the speed of the vehicle. You have to also consider the speed at which the obstacle enters the path of the vehicle, the time the driver has to react and their actual reaction speed. (I exclude road/weather/lighting conditions and the state of brakes and tires simply because that makes it even more complicated, but all are factors).

Imagine you are driving at 25 mph and someone simply steps off the curb or runs out between two cars immediately in front of you. Your fault or theirs?

[Omegamanic]

Imagine you are driving at 25 mph and someone simply steps off the curb or runs out between two cars immediately in front of you. Your fault or theirs?

What would sound plausible, would you likely be believed with your explanation of events, and what could you prove - everything else...

[ernestrome]

What would sound plausible, would you likely be believed with your explanation of events, and what could you prove - everything else...

Great avoidance of a reasonable question. Well done.

[Maysie]

Eh, rhetorical or not, its not pertinent because it’s not totally dependant upon the speed of the vehicle. You have to also consider the speed at which the obstacle enters the path of the vehicle, the time the driver has to react and their actual reaction speed. (I exclude road/weather/lighting conditions and the state of brakes and tires simply because that makes it even more complicated, but all are factors).

Imagine you are driving at 25 mph and someone simply steps off the curb or runs out between two cars immediately in front of you. Your fault or theirs?

As I understand it the animal was standing stationary in the road, so did not 'leap to its death' in front of the car as it approached. In which case the speed of the vehicle is the primary factor deciding whether or not there was time to react or otherwise.

The farmer has an obligation to keep his sheep off the road, but the driver also has a responsibility to drive in a safe manner, so colliding with a stationary object on the road is not doing that in my opinion.

[tixntox]

You are still alive to tell the tale. Take the hit and move on. Dung happens. Get over it. I know that it's annoying. Just order a rack of lamb next time you're eating out and smile. :)

[ghu1967]

It’s a tough spot to be in for sure. Living in the Highlands of Scotland, and out in the countryside rather than in a town, I’m all too familiar with the potential around every corner; stray wildlife, errant livestock, deer, pheasants with a death wish, loose boulders (the size of footballs) on the road having been dislodged from dykes by deer hurdling the wall, slow moving tractors with no lights, cyclists two abreast in the middle of the road, foreign tourists coming towards you on the wrong side of the road, I’ve experienced all of these; some in daylight, some in the dark. What it teaches you is to expect the unexpected. Obviously I can’t say what speed you were doing, whether there was any blame on your part, none of that’s mine to judge, but I think you might struggle to come away from the incident without some kind of financial downside. Fingers crossed it works out for you though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trainspanner]

Totally agree ghu1967 and thanks mate.

As I said Im grateful it wasn’t worse, much worse! my car is being repaired and I know that even with protected no claims my insurance will climb a little - I disagree as it goes against ‘protecting the no claims’ but I knew it was coming.

What Im fighting to avoid is the £600 excess and it being classed as a fault claim on my insurance giving a large increase for years to come rather than the negligent party/insurance covering it and it being a small increase.

[Tooks]

What Im fighting to avoid is the £600 excess and it being classed as a fault claim on my insurance giving a large increase for years to come rather than the negligent party/insurance covering it and it being a small increase.

£600 is indeed worth fighting for, no arguments there.

In my case, one claim wrote my car off and injured me with it, the other was £3k plus of repairs. Both not my fault and I claimed all my losses back in full.

But, my premiums were not just a little higher in subsequent years, they were a lot higher.

Apparently, stats show that people involved in ‘accidents’ even if not at fault show they are likely to be involved in another one within 3 years. Insurers load your premium accordingly.

I mitigated my increases to an extent by shopping around aggressively, but in hindsight I should have added future increased premiums to my claim. Difficult I know, as it’s hard to prove losses going forward.

[kungfupanda]

As I and others have said, it’s not your insurance company’s job to recover your excess. You chose to set that excess limit which you have to cover yourself.

The only way you will not pay that excess is if your car is repaired by the third party at their own cost directly or alternatively you make use of your own legal expenses insurer to recover the excess.

[ralphy]

I had contact* with another vehicle in a local lane last year, despite my 'protected' NCD I subsequently saw a significant increase in my annual premium from the insurer. However, a change of insurer reduced that increase down to lower than my previous premium.

* The end result was a 50/50 apportionment between the two parties insurers, but it was such a minimal contact that I didn't bother claiming for the damage to my vehicle as it was negligible.

R

[amnesia]

If you have Motor Legal Expenses (MLE) on your policy then you can use that to instruct legal advice to get a view of whether or not you can bring remediation charges against the farmer. If your insurance company's claims processed is outsourced to a 3rd party claims processor then you have another party to factor into the shenanigans.

Unfortunately your year-on-year premium will go up regardless of fault (even if your NCD is protected/guaranteed) - you have been involved in an incident, and statistically you are therefore more likely to have another. Insurance premiums are risk-based... insurers can't simply make up premiums just because you've had an accident - it's based on risk and likelihood of future incidents / claims, along with hundreds if not thousands of other data factors that produce consistent premiums for the same risk.

Have a read of my blog for a bit more info - https://forum.tz-uk.com/entry.php?29...need-to-know-!

[ghu1967]

It’s not to your original question/post, but this reminded me of a story a friend of mine told me. He was driving in the country when a red deer jumped over a wall and hit his car. The deer was shaken, stood up, and wandered unsteadily off into the woods. When he contacted his insurance, they kept asking him who the deer belonged to, was there a farmer he could approach who was liable for the deer etc etc. He eventually became exasperated that the call handler couldn’t grasp that this was a wild animal with a mind of its own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk