Reply With QuoteEven 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.
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.
Last edited by trainspanner; 10th March 2020 at 19:43.
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.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
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.
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.
Exact same thing happened to me. I found who the farmer was and claimed on his liability insurance without losing my NCB
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.
This will be the case that needs to be proven.Originally Posted by mitch1956
What on earth would the ombudsman do at this stage? A driver crashed into a sheep, causing damage to his insured car. Presumably the driver called his insuring and asked them to deal with it. They appear to be doing just that, at this time. Maybe once you have an example of them dealing with the matter inappropriately or unprofessionally, you could refer it.
It's just a matter of time...
Read the thread Brains. The insurance company are already negating all liability and talking about excess etc. That is because they dont want to go down expensive routes. They usually have a whole department who's aim is to make you walk away and pay. I've had it myself in a case way someone damaged my vehicle quite badly and left the scene but someone got their number. Police were NOT interested but I wasnt walking away. Paid out in the end but was a right royal pain to deal with.
It’s got to the stage now with insurance that as soon as you make that call to them and any element of an incident is recorded on their system it will be to your disadvantage irrespective of blame/fault for a few years to come.
The protected bonus system always amuses me, it’s worth nothing, just another insurance policy insuring your NCB “oh yes you still have 9 yrs NCB but we have increased your premium because you have made a claim” . it’s really time bonus protection was exposed and subject to a miss selling expose
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.
insurers make judments on liability on a case by case basis, just because some one won a case does not mean every case were the policyholder believes they are in the right should or can be pursued ,where recovery of costs can be made they are, however if a hypothetical case is going to cost 50K to fight a legal case through the courts with no certainty of the out come/win on a £5 K claim, it does not take a legal eagle to work out which is the sensible course of action, yes for the insurer , but also you would be complaining about premium increases if this was done on every claim with a possible / arguable recovery of outlay with a loss of £45 K if you lose !,
There are parts of the U.K. where sheep, horses, cattle and even pigs are free to roam on the highway.
Is this the case in the area it happened?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
The excess is an uninsured loss. The OP’s insurers are not under a duty to seek recovery of it on his behalf whether liability rests with the other party or not. It’s down to the OP to recover this from the third party if he wishes to do so.
OP, if you have legal expenses insurance, maybe you could instruct them to seek recovery of you uninsured losses. They could also do the legwork on seeking a determination on liability.
I had a no fault claim about a year ago. A brand new driver moved into my lane without looking and wrote off my (old, knackered and cheap) car. What I learnt from this:
- Always take the motor legal protection with your insurance policy. If you end up making a claim that goes through your policy, even if it isn’t your fault, you have to pay an excess and then recover this yourself unless you have the motor legal protection. I was fortunate and the third party insurance company admitted liability and took care of everything.
- Even if you were not at fault at all, you will be penalised and end up paying more for your insurance premiums. I think this cost me about £30-40 in my next years premium even though the accident wasn’t my fault and the claim bypassed my insurers completely, going through the third parties policy only.
- Once my car was written off and hauled away by the breaker, I now had an insurance policy for no car. I ended up having to pay my insurance company a £50 admin fee to cancel my policy. I was warned it had to be cancelled otherwise if the car was put back on the road, I could be liable for any accident it could be in whilst my policy was active on it.
Last edited by Christian; 11th March 2020 at 00:21.
Thanks for all the replies so far.
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.
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...
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?
Last edited by trainspanner; 11th March 2020 at 03:02.
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.
Brains lol
yeah - try reading the thread yourself maybe...
“
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.”
Now tell me WTF an ombudsman would do at this stage, rather than as I suggested.
It's just a matter of time...
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?
Last edited by AKM; 11th March 2020 at 16:54.
I heard that somewhere before. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe it!
I think the farmer will be liable for the damage caused here.
Theoretically, he could refute the claim on the basis that he wasn't negligent in any way or that he believed the claimant was in some way negligent. But it would be very hard for him to prove either of those.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
As a former part-time farmer, I’m pretty sure you are going to have to prove the farmer has been negligent - maybe the law is different in the UK, but I don’t believe he has to prove anything. He might even have a case to sue for the loss of the animal.
It's just a matter of time...
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.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
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
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.
*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.
Good detective work, and I agree that your worry now must be that the farmer isn’t insured. You still haven’t really proved that the sheep was in a field that you’ve photographed holes in though, and lots of things happen that mean sheep escape. One of the farms in my village had sheep all over the place, turns out somebody had cut the chain on a locked gate and stolen a trailer load, leaving the rest to wander.
But anyway, I’m afraid you will definitely lose out financially because of this.
I can say this with certainty as the victim of two genuinely non-fault accidents, as others have said, my premiums increased due to them anyway. Maybe not as much as for fault accidents, but who knows.
Last edited by Tooks; 12th March 2020 at 14:42.
You said
"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".
I say
"You should always be able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear"!
A de-restricted 60mph road does not mean that one has to drive above there ability.
The insurance ombudsman is worse than useless.
Their, it’s not hard is it, surely?
It’s not ability that is over there in the distance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree *partially* with this, which is why I slowed down going into said curve, but what your suggesting is we all slow to around 15mph around every bend we encounter (depending on the bend and time of day?) which cannot happen. This is the exact reason farmers have liability insurance - I know because its advertised as such on liability insurance websites. This type of comment/opinion means your missing a key detail;
Wild animal = tough doodoo
Livestock = owned / cared for (contained) / responsible for / liable for
My insurer agrees with me now so thats half the battle, the final hurdle is co-operation of the guilty party so again, I may be snookered.
The proof that the sheep was in the field is the land owner telling me this fellas flock was on his land and the sheep with this guys tagged details on its ear was in a heap on the road outside a gap in a hedge where the rest of the flock with identical tags was...
Im sure a great lawyer could get a celebrity off scott-free of this but, for us ordinary folk maybe the right outcome might happen, lets wait and see.
Forgive me if I’m reading this wrong but are you saying the owner of the sheep was keeping his sheep in another farmers field?
If so, where does liability fall? The owner of the sheep or the owner of the field for not making sure it was secure?
A great lawyer, representing the animal owner, would probably be looking to assign blame against you and the land owner.
If I paid to have my animals graze, as part of an agistment arrangement, then usually the land owner would responsible for the safety of my animals and the upkeep of his boundaries and fences.
Good luck with the result- I hope you achieve a sensible outcome.
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.
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
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
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.
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-!
£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.
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.
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
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
This is a stressful situation and nightmare to deal with.
I hit a deer about 6/7 years ago. 1pm on the A1 on a Friday afternoon a deer jumps on the road and the car in front somehow missed it. I ran straight through it at 70mph. My car was drivable but I waited for the police for a crime number.
On notifying my insurance company they basically said I had to claim from my self! Basically a fault accident on my behalf. I had protected NCB but of course they dance around this on renewal date by getting you to disclose an ‘claims’ within the last 5 years. I reckon that day cost me about £1000 in increased insurance policies over the next 5 years.
No way round it to my knowledge and to anyone who was hit a deer, it’s not nice and apparently there’s 70,000 collisions per year!
The only funny thing to come out of it is the ‘ambulance’ chasing solicitors that still chase me for a claim to this day. They say as I was involved in a non fault accident and as soon maybe entitled to compensation! I say ‘I killed an old deer, how dare you’ they quickly panic and hang up!
Unfortunately in my opinion you could claim of the farmer, or alternatively you’ll be paying for it for the next 5 years I’m sorry to say!
Unfortunately , that’s the way it goes. Unless your insurer could make a recovery from someone, it’s down as a fault claim. The deer may have been at fault however it’s a wild animal and therefore no legal entity to claim from.
Protected NCB still protects you’re NCB however if you have a claim, the premium before the discount is applied still rises.
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?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
What would sound plausible, would you likely be believed with your explanation of events, and what could you prove - everything else...
It's just a matter of time...
Great avoidance of a reasonable question. Well done.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
