Woman sues horses' owner after car crash | The Columbus Dispatch

I am pretty sure the farmer did not want his horses on the road. I do not think he did anything on purpose. Those horses could have easily been deer or any other wild animal.(Why could she not have seen them and stopped before hitting them?) If it had been (wildlife)... who would she be suing then? It doesn't make sense ... If she needed help with medical couldn't she have asked the farmer and maybe he had insurance that could have helped ... but to sue for something that really was not his fault is frivolous. Taking up the court and it's time for something like this.
Like coffee being to hot ... come on ... get real!

I wonder if her blood alcohol level was checked at the time of the crash. 2:50am...I'm just saying.

I also agree that her blood alcohol level should have been checked, if it was not. However, it was the responsibility of the farmer to make sure his animals were properly secured at all times. I feel it is his responsibility to pay for the damages that his negligence led to.

As a farmer, is is my responsibility to keep livestock out of the roads, a few years ago I had several cattle get loose..after a week of trying to capture them, I had to use a rifle. My insurance would have covered damages if the cattle were hit, however if somone dies or is seriously injured i would be culpable.

Amy wrote:

I also agree that her blood alcohol level should have been checked, if it was not. However, it was the responsibility of the farmer to make sure his animals were properly secured at all times. I feel it is his responsibility to pay for the damages that his negligence led to.

I agree with "Outraged". I'm sure the Farmer didn't release the Horses and tell them to stand in the Road! After all they were valuable to him. If he can be sued, why not the Division of Wildlife when Deer are struck? DUMB. Just OPEN YOUR EYES!

Outraged wrote:

I am pretty sure the farmer did not want his horses on the road. I do not think he did anything on purpose. Those horses could have easily been deer or any other wild animal.(Why could she not have seen them and stopped before hitting them?) If it had been (wildlife)... who would she be suing then? It doesn't make sense ... If she needed help with medical couldn't she have asked the farmer and maybe he had insurance that could have helped ... but to sue for something that really was not his fault is frivolous. Taking up the court and it's time for something like this.
Like coffee being to hot ... come on ... get real!

you must be nuts.....hope she gets everything and more

Wow, this lady sure gets up very early to go to work. I am glad that it was not someone in a broken down car that she hit.

I bet she has a full recovery soon after she gets her settlement.

We are so unfamiliar as a society with our agricultural and rural roots now! If I am driving on roads near farms, I do keep my eyes peeled for livestock that may have gotten loose -- as they have always managed to do through the centuries, without negligence on the part of the farmer. Just as I do for wildlife.
This reminds me of the woman who sued the state because she was attacked by a mountain lion in a wilderness area.

dave wrote:

<quoted text>
you must be nuts.....hope she gets everything and more

If you think I am nuts ... thats fine. But I think you are one of those people that will sue anyone for your own mistakes just to make a buck. The woman should have seen a horse in front of her and stopped.

Outraged wrote:

I am pretty sure the farmer did not want his horses on the road. I do not think he did anything on purpose. Those horses could have easily been deer or any other wild animal.(Why could she not have seen them and stopped before hitting them?) If it had been (wildlife)... who would she be suing then? It doesn't make sense ... If she needed help with medical couldn't she have asked the farmer and maybe he had insurance that could have helped ... but to sue for something that really was not his fault is frivolous. Taking up the court and it's time for something like this.
Like coffee being to hot ... come on ... get real!

The question isnt what the farmer meant to do. The question is whether a reasonable person in his situation would keep his livestock off the damn road, and my hunch is the farmer may have a problem there. This is not one bit like the coffee case. This is flat out plain and simple your carelessness caused me harm, and whether you like it or not, that amounts to a cause of action in every state in this country. If she was negligent too that could be a factor, but your response to this is nuts. I knew a woman who was killed when a poorly hitched trailer flew off the car in front of her. Same thing. You live near a highway, you have livestock, keep your damn horses where they belong. This is not Wyoming in 1890.

Outraged wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think I am nuts ... thats fine. But I think you are one of those people that will sue anyone for your own mistakes just to make a buck. The woman should have seen a horse in front of her and stopped.

You have no idea what the facts were. You're just a loudmouth blusterer.

Randy wrote:

As a farmer, is is my responsibility to keep livestock out of the roads, a few years ago I had several cattle get loose..after a week of trying to capture them, I had to use a rifle. My insurance would have covered damages if the cattle were hit, however if somone dies or is seriously injured i would be culpable.

Thank you. Damn straight you'd be liable and the posts here are off the wall.

Ohio Lawyer wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no idea what the facts were. You're just a loudmouth blusterer.

Just like Dave ... I think you are just a Lawyer that would rather make a buck on frivolous law suites than defend innocent people and put real criminals away. Just tying up the courts and money with people that can't see animals in the road.
As for the farmer I am sure he didn't let his animals get loose to get killed.

Ohio is not a "free-range" state, as some western states are....
an animals owner is required to keep the animal off the roads.....

From Wikipedia......

"United States
Traditional American usage equates "free-range" with "unfenced," and with the implication that there was no herdsman keeping them together or managing them in any way. Legally, a free-range jurisdiction allowed livestock (perhaps only of a few named species) to run free, and the owner was not liable for any damage they caused. In such jurisdictions, people who wished to avoid damage by livestock had to fence them out; in others, the owners had to fence them in"......

Ohio is one of the "others"

Outraged wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like Dave ... I think you are just a Lawyer that would rather make a buck on frivolous law suites than defend innocent people and put real criminals away. Just tying up the courts and money with people that can't see animals in the road.
As for the farmer I am sure he didn't let his animals get loose to get killed.

I was explaining what the law of negligence is, and the farmer's intent has nothing to do with it.

Let me share one more insight from 22 years of a successful law practice. Judging the merits of a case when you havent heard one single witness or seen one bit of evidence is work for fools.

Ohio Lawyer wrote:

<quoted text>
I was explaining what the law of negligence is, and the farmer's intent has nothing to do with it.
Let me share one more insight from 22 years of a successful law practice. Judging the merits of a case when you havent heard one single witness or seen one bit of evidence is work for fools.

God forbid an honest to goodness lawyer with the background and education to explain the law for these nitwits here get a "oh, geez I didn't know that, thanks for enlightening us" instead of being accused of trying to make a buck. These people need to get over themselves and thank you. I assumed that the farmer would be held responsible. Why question is why this woman is demanding a jury? Why won't she allow the attorneys to work it out unless there was an attemp and it failed? It doesn't seem like a huge amounmt of money but it does seem excessive and sounds like she is trying to get more out of the farmer then what she can support...would that be an explanation as to why she wants a jury? There are more people out there wanting to sue for way more then what is resonable..I know, I was on a jury for one of those!

Glass Houses wrote:

<quoted text>
God forbid an honest to goodness lawyer with the background and education to explain the law for these nitwits here get a "oh, geez I didn't know that, thanks for enlightening us" instead of being accused of trying to make a buck. These people need to get over themselves and thank you. I assumed that the farmer would be held responsible. Why question is why this woman is demanding a jury? Why won't she allow the attorneys to work it out unless there was an attemp and it failed? It doesn't seem like a huge amounmt of money but it does seem excessive and sounds like she is trying to get more out of the farmer then what she can support...would that be an explanation as to why she wants a jury? There are more people out there wanting to sue for way more then what is resonable..I know, I was on a jury for one of those!

Thanks. The simple candid answer to most of your questions is "I dont know for sure." And I dont have time to look up the case online. She is not asking for a large sum of money: in fact, Ohio law only allows you to put "more than $25,000" on a complaint, but that is the minimum amount for a Common Pleas case, which is where most real personal injury actions get tried. Jury demands are also common on the assumption that juries are more favorable to injured plaintiffs than a judge would be -- which is just an educated guess. There is no reason at all to assume she "wouldnt allow the attorneys to work it out." There can be many reasons why cases dont settle, some entirely beyond a plaintiff's control, and this one may still settle for all we know.

Finally, I dont know that the farmer will ultimately be held liable, but if he his horses got in the road and are found to be the cause of the woman's injuries, he certainly may be liable. Mostly I was responding to posters who automatically assume the farmer would not be liable, becuase they know little about our legal system. Thanks for recognizing that I was just trying to educate people and the cheap shots at me were silly and rude, but there's a lot of that going around.

Again, the silly thing people do is judge cases based on their gut reactions to a newspaper article. Meaning that they don't know the law or the facts. There are reasons why trials take time.

Ohio Lawyer wrote:

Again, the silly thing people do is judge cases based on their gut reactions to a newspaper article. Meaning that they don't know the law or the facts. There are reasons why trials take time.

This will probably go to court because the farmers insurance company will not pay. I had an experience several years ago with a small claim for lost wages due to an accident. The insurance company (Right here in Columbus) you know the ones that say they are on your side, refused to pay me for my lost wages, even though the delay in fixing my vehicle was their own adjuster's fault. The damage to my car was paid on the spot but I was forced to take the other party to court to get my money for lost wages. Nationwide paid my wages in full the day before it went to court.