Even though a cow once put me through a hedge for walking between her and the calf, I'm with the farmer completely. Walkers with dogs have to have their wits about them, no excuses. Going into a field with cows and calves, even if you have a quiet dog on a lead, does not endear you to the cows. A farmer doesn't always have the options described in the magistrates pious opinion.

Even though a cow once put me through a hedge for walking between her and the calf, I'm entirely with the farmer on this. Walkers with dogs have to have their wits about them, no excuses. Going into a field with cows and calves, even if you have a quiet dog on a lead, does not endear you to the cows. A farmer doesn't always have the options described in the magistrates pious opinion.

Marilyn Munro-Holloway: the farm's operators admitted the offence, the HSE gave some very sensible, practical advice and a bench of magistrates sentenced. It doesn't look like the law agrees with you.

I'm with Marilyn on this one - there isn't much point in being on the right side of the law when you are dead. Cows with calves need to be treated with caution to avoid further tragedies of this type.

Stop blaming the walkers! Rights of Way should be safe to walk. Plus not everybody realises that cows can be dangerous.

Marilyn is talking sense here - if a path that is a right of way crosses a field, walkers often say that the farmer should fence off both sides of the path to ensure the safety of walkers. but in the real world this would (a) be prohibitively expensive, and (b) could make part of the grazing unusable if there is no water supply, or shelter, in that part. In my experience, grazing animals are in infinitely more danger from the public, than the public are from them. There noo, ah've draigglt ma coat-tails

If you walk in the countryside you need to understand the risks. Saying not everyone realises cows are dangerous is like saying one does not realise dogs can bite you. Any animal can be unpredictable if it feels threatened especially when protecting their off spring...even human beings can act this way.

Nevertheless I feel for the family of the walker who was killed in what was a very unfortunate incident and maybe the publicity that this is given will help to minimise of a similar event occuring.

Landowners have a legal duty of care to protect members of the public using highways across their land, and must take reasonable steps to mitigate the risks, just like any business must do. It is not reasonable to expect members of the public to accept a risk of death by walking down the High Street, nor a Public Right of Way in the countryside.

The victim blaming comments above are shameful. Do you blame all victims of violence for simply being where they were attacked? If a dog bit your child whilst you were walking across a park, would you blame your child for being there and accept the fact that dogs bite? Thought not.

coming into contact with farm animals is one of the problems with walking in the countryside.

Farmers should keep animals out of fields that people are allowed to walk through. They can be vary dangerous so should be kept well away from the public.

Comparisons need to be handled with care. Equating the high street to field is possibly valid if you accept that you wouldn't walk down the middle of the street because of the traffic.
The issue of being bitten by a dog is not equivalent. Taking a "pet" iinto a public space s in no way the same as a farmer's livestock (and livelihood) being in his place of business.
The amount of damage done by those and their animals do by using rights of way far outweighs the harm done to those visitors for not understanding the environment they are in.

I feel for both parties here. A tragic story of a walker just walking. Yet I hesitate to blame the farmer. I dont have a dog but I treat cows with caution especially if calves are pressent and give them a very very wide berth because they are bigger than me. I'm happy to steer well clear of cows even at times using the next field over as long as the land owner/farmer doesnt have a go at me for straying off the footpath. This approach has served me well.

There's a part to play for both walkers and farmers when around cows, however none of us were there to witness the tragic event The farmer pleaded guilty and the HSE have advised what measures could have been put in place to avoid such incidents happen. So how anyone can back the farmer in this?

Any group of cows can be unpredictable, not just those with calves. Advice I got from a farmer in rural Leicestershire was to walk calmly, keeping a prudent distance from the animals and try not to attract their attention. They are curious beasts frequently follow or even chase after walkers, particularly with dogs. If you find yourself being the focus of cows' attention and they seem determined to get up close and personal, first; let dogs go free. This might suffice to draw their attention away from you, giving time to reach safer ground. If they persist, stand your ground and make yourself as big as possible, wave your arms towards them and firmly tell them to move on. Don't run!

This was the farmer's land which he should be able to use as he sees fit.

It may be a right of way but you should still exercise caution and due care.

This is a sad accident. Perhaps people walking with dogs should think twice before crossing fields with cattle in.

We should all know the dangers by now.You can always turn back.

"We should all know the dangers by now.You can always turn back." FFS. Nonsense.

It's a public RIGHT of way.

That's enshrined in law.

Jo Austin. Your comments are incorrect.

The Public Right of Way is a highway and the County Council are responsible for the surface of the public right of way. So, your assumption that the farmer should be able to use the highway as he/she sees fit is wrong.

Secondly, the 1957 Occupier's Liability Act states that the occupier (landowner, farmer etc) owes visitors to their land a duty of care... “take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there”. Walking along a Right of Way is a lawful reason to be there.

It is not incumbent upon the visitor to assess the risks and take mitigating action; it is incumbent upon the landowner/occupier. This is the same for all businesses; they all have a duty of care to protect the public from harm.

There are lots of incorrect assumptions in many of the comments.

The Highway (in this case a Right of Way) is maintained by the County Council, who are responsible for the surface of the Highway. So, the farmer can not use the Highway as he/she sees fit.

Secondly, the Occupier's Liability 1957 Act states that the occupier (farmer, landowner etc) owes a Duty of Care to visitors to the premises/land etc... “to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there”. Walking along a Right of Way is a permissible act, protected in law.

All businesses have a duty of care towards members of the public (as well as their employees) to take reasonable steps to keep them safe from harm.

It is incumbent upon the business to assess the risks and take mitigating action, not the member of public (who may not be aware of the risks).

The question is what constitutes a 'reasonable step' in this case. The court has rightly judged that he could have done more, but many farmers in honeypot walking areas may face issues separating walkers from their cattle.

While it's easy to say, don't graze cows with calf in fields containing RoWs, a glance at the OS Map for Ivescar Farm shows his issue. His entire farm, particularly the valley floor grazing for cattle, is criss-crossed with multiple, often duplicated footpaths, bridleways and byways. This is frequently the case in the Dales. There is only a tiny portion of his land which does not have some kind of RoW crossing it.

Dogs are frequently the trigger for attacks, and it is possible that this was the case here. Currently the public has the default expectation that their freedom to cross/re-cross a RoW includes their dogs. Perhaps it is time to consider narrow seasonal restrictions for dogs on certain paths on working farms where the risk is highest? That would at least give farmers more options for putting herds in places least likely to cause problems.

I agree with Matthew about this particular case being almost impossible and feel that this will also be the case for many other farmers. Personally i think that people walking dogs on these paths are the issue. It is a footpath not a paw path to exercise your dogs on! and quite frankly I feel that the arguments used to demand these rights that people want are totally abusive to land owners. The recent case concerning the right to wild camp on national parks highlights the ignorance of individuals who want to insist on their next perfect moment with no reference to anyone or thing else. The case has been heard and in this instance the judge ruled that the wild camping could happen but conditions needed to be applied. However this is not enough we "want our rights to camp for free" they cry. But there is always a much bigger debate than has been presented. In my example,one such issue is that people appear to have been led to believe, that because they are called "national parks" the area is owned by the government and therefore the public so have a right to roam and use as they see fit. However only a very sm % is thus owned - the rest is privately owned and the management of the land funded privately. If the land is not grazed and managed it will soon convert to inaccessible scrub. (The same is the case for all those lovely footpaths - it is managed land if someone was not paying to keep it thus it would quickly revert....or re-wild as the trendy term goes and become un-passable brambles and then scrub and in a few hundred years dense forest). In the same way you save to buy a house - probably with a mortgage loan land is purchased. You pay to make your garden look nice so you can enjoy the benefits that you purchased it for, so do the land owners. Meanwhile back at the recent wild camping issue - Next we have planning issues. As a land owner within a nation park (area of beauty) it is virtually impossible to gain a wild camping license. If one is given it has to be paid for and toilets, rubbish collection and land damage repairs have to be paid for. Yet under the proposals, this business diversification option in an already impoverished economic area is to be trashed because the "people so have a right" to camp for free (rather than pay £10 / night) and can crap and piss anywhere they like (and just like they do with their dogs - not make any effort to clear it up) They leave their rubbish behind (that the land owner will be fined for if it is not cleared away) and finally drive and walk where they like irrespective of any damage they might be causing and go home, back to their predominately urbanized lives, safe in the knowledge, and satisfied that they have connected with and enjoyed their rights to access the countryside, which they erroneously believe to be public property. I am left wondering how these same people would feel if i wished to exercise my right to roam in their garden they have purchased and maintained...it is more beautiful and expensive than anything i could afford to own... so on the current showing of sticking it to the man, who is the man by virtue of being wealthier than me (I don't have disposable wealth to have a nice garden and hold swanky events... I so have a right. I will park and block their entrance. Be abusively rude to them when they point out i am on private property they ask me to move my vehicle from blocking a gate i wish to use. Picnic on their lawn and leave my rubbish everywhere. Allow my dog to crap and chase their cat (and sue them if my cat scratches their dog or child) and finally i will damage their property by driving my car into their fence as I leave. Personally I think i should start a petition to demand my rights. Nb. I do not live on the moors or even within the designated park area... but we get people coming down the private farm lane and blocking the access. Entering my orchard & fields to have a picnic and generally doing all of the above mentioned violations of my personal property. Most land owner - myself included are proud of the land and consider we are guardians and custodians rather than owners, we are happy to try and educate others into what the countryside is all about and to offer others a chance to enjoy it. (If i find someone having a picnic in my orchard - yes i do point out it is private land, but then ... unless they are abusive to me... I give them permission to enjoy their picnic and have a walk). But 90% of the free loaders (because this is what they are if they are not prepared to pay £10 / night to come and appreciate the countryside and contribute to the continuation of the habitat they claim to want to enjoy) are rude, know nothings who destroy and spoil everything they touch.
And as for the comment about the council maintaining the paths, they don't in Devon. Land owners are bullied and harassed by local walkers action groups to cut the nasty thorns round the gates, because they might prick their finger and are moaned at because someone might get their feet wet crossing the world's smallest stream that could be stepped over in one stride... they so have a right to have a bridge. In conclusion, my opinion is if as a dog owner you want to walk your dog in a field and let it off the lead - go and buy a field and pay to maintain it. And my response to all those who are posting about their rights to use public highways - try exerting that right, with your dog and it's throw stick (that no doubt you will latterly claim you were not using!) on a motorway and see how it goes! Where this is all going from the "Opinions" of the judge, is that more and more landowners are going to fence the 1.8M width of the footpath path (and it will serve you all right if they do so with 8ft high larch lap on both sides). When you have all finished having your perfect right enforced, you can then enjoy the view of the fence panel.