Favourites News

Flying Dog Injures Woman

Old lady compensated for high-velocity airborne dog injuries.

Rosemary Skrine, secretary of the Island Hunt in Wexford,  was struck by a high-velocity flying dog and seriously injured four years ago.

The accident happened when 81-year-old Ms Skrine was  trying to stop the traffic because one of the Hunt’s foxhounds was on the wrong side of the road.  Abbas Ahmed didn’t notice the old lady standing in the middle of the road waving at him, and struck the dog with his car.  The dog bounced off the vehicle and flattened poor Ms Skrine, causing head, knee and hip injuries.  The dog unfortunately didn’t survive, though history doesn’t record whether the collision with the car or the old lady killed it.

Ms Skrine sued Mr Ahmed and the Island Hunt for her injuries.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicky Kearns, decided yesterday that Mr Ahmed should have seen Ms Skrine in the middle of the road, whereas the Hunt had no case to answer, and he therefore awarded €87,000 against Mr Ahmed.

The Island Hunt got away without paying anything and this is where his learned judgefulness has lost me.

To be negligent, I thought you have to reasonably foresee that something could go wrong.  If I had my dog out on the road without a lead and someone was injured in a traffic accident as a result, I’d be negligent because any fool can see you don’t let your dog run free on the road. Any cretin can see that, unless the cretin happens to be the Island Hunt.  It seems that if you happen to have dozens of dogs running around the road, instead of just one, there’s no obligation to figure out that it might be a bit dangerous.

Twenty dogs running around in the traffic could cause an accident?  Who knew?

And that’s why the Island Hunt didn’t have to pay compensation.  They weren’t negligent.

Mr Ahmed, however, was negligent, because obviously he should have known that he might hit a wandering dog, that the dog would take off in a flat trajectory and hit an old lady, causing her serious injury.

I mean, any idiot could see that’s the most likely thing to happen, and that’s why Mr Ahmed had to pay the compensation.


79 replies on “Flying Dog Injures Woman”

I bet the auld judge is a member of the hunting fraternity himself.This is an appalling injustice against Mr Ahmed.Shows what happens to the peasants in this country when they come up against the “Nobility”and their so called “sport” in a courtroom.They are treated with the same contempt as those sick specimens of humanity show for the poor animals they terrorise for fun

What do you define as the ” hunting fraternity ” and who are the ” nobility ” who participate in the sport of hunting ?

Norma Good heavens ! I would not have thought that you would have indulged in “riding to hounds” I have no doubt that you look stunning in “hunting pink”. Do please look out for irresponsible motorists after the hounds. The Master of the hunt would not care to loose them. Tally Ho! Ol Gal.

So if you have one dog you must keep it on a lead and clean up after it. But you can ignore the law of the land if or it dosen’t apply if you have a pack of them.
If Mr Ahmed did not hit Ms Skrine and as far as I know it is not a crime to hit a dog on the road ….
At this point I am lost as to what the poor man did to be sued.

Just one small clarification. There’s no question of anyone being convicted of a crime. This was a civil case in which one party sued two others for compensation.

Gary; In all honesty, would you view me with a jaundiced eye were i to say i took part in an activity called “Hunting ” the expression ” riding to hounds ” is an outdated English description of same which i have never heard used in this country, and no i may well have looked respendent in ” hunting pink ” but it was neither my role or my colour.
The facts are that a Hunt would fall under the legal catogory of ” herding ” as in a person in charge of numerous animals on a public road would have right of way, This would also apply to herders moving sheep, cattle etc from one area to another, all precautions to warn motorists must prevail, these are old laws that were in place to assist rural communities to conduct their work and leisure pursuits, of course rural life has now changed so much, it’s fairly rare to encounter the movement of animals on country roads, you are far more likely to encounter such events in towns and cities, with sulky racing and stray horses.
Apparantly, The lady in question, a very experiencd hunt follower, regularly seen with a flashing light on roof of her vehicle as soon as dusk descended to guide any stray followers or hounds safetly home, Had stopped to slow oncoming traffic to warn oncoming drivers that the Hunt was crossing the road, one hound broke from the pack and several oncoming drivers were stopped while recovery of the hound ensued, it was on a straight stretch of road and Mr.Ahmed may not have judged the reason for so many stalled vehicles, however he hit the hound with such force that the hound was propelled through the air and impacted with Mrs Skrine.

It was a civil case and the Hunt would have fallen under ” herding ” law, nothing whatsoever to do with “fraternities”, What though if Mrs Skrine had been waving traffic down for any other reason and a person had been hit by the car ? Would there be the same reaction ? granted a flying hound is bizaar.
You may be surprised to hear that not all people who partake in ” Hunting ” are elitist assholes who shout “Tally ho ” as they blunder across the countryside, never once heard that expression used, Thats the caricature side of the sport only used by people who know absolutly nothing about its role in Irish rural life.

Norma — I personally wouldn’t be too interested in archaic “herding” laws from a different century. The comparison I’m making is between what would happen to me if I failed to control my dog, versus what happens to somebody if they fail to control 20 or 40 dogs.

Bock; This country is saturated with archaic laws and by laws, no matter what we think of them, they are still active.
If you or I take our dog for a walk and unleash him/her and the dog causes an accident, we are liable as it would fall under ” control of dogs ” act, equally loose unattended horses, cows, sheep on the road cause an accident, the owner of the animal or animals are liable as the onus is on them to proof their boundaries, The difference in Law is that when all obligations of safety are fulfilled in Law a person or persons conducting the movement of animals on public roads, per “Herding ” They have the legal ” right of way ” and a Hunt and Hounds fall under this catogory, As Mrs Skine was flagging down traffic with directive signs, the onus was on the driver to follow her signs, as other drivers had followed her direction, the accident occuring through Mr. Ahmeds confusion or whatever was deemed his responsibility.
It’s not really relevant here but if someone was broken down or had had an accident and someone was trying to slow traffic to avoid further injury to the general public I doubt there would be the same reaction, I do think the whole “Hunting ” debacle and how it’s viewed by most people inflames this particular incident, and as i said the ” flying dog ” part of the story makes it even more ” attractive ” The injured woman being an active part of the ” fraternity” did not shy away from sueing her own ” club ” well she coud’nt sue the hound could she ?
As the case was Civil, it is very likely that Mr Ahmed had little or no say in what his insurance company paid out, apparantly he is a bus driver and awareness of safety on the road would be part of his criteria in his livlihood, He will probably lose his personal no claims bonus for 3 years unless he has that insured, but it’s very unlikely he has to pay out of his pocket.
My real question here is, had a concerned citizen succeeded in stopping traffic because a stray dog was on the road, resulting in similar circumstances, Would there be the same reaction ? Many people despise Hunting and hold pre concieved ideas regarding same with no evidence to the contrary.
But this isn’t really a Hunting debate………………or is it ?

I’m not too interested in the hunting aspect of it and as I said, I’m not that interested in the various laws pertaining to herding. What I’m interested in here is the logic of the decision and if somebody had a herd of alpacas on the road I’d be asking the same question.

Is it reasonable to expect the driver to foresee such a bizarre accident and is it reasonable that the person herding the animals has no case to answer?

No i don’t think its reasonable for the driver to foresee such a bizarre accident, However it seems as though several other drivers had stopped when Mr.Ahmed approached, So if that were the case, and Mr.Ahmed saw several cars halted on the road, How did he hit the hound with such force as to propel him through the air ? The road was a straight stretch, apparantly visibility was excellent, I don’t know if Mr Ahmed overtook stopped cars or not or if the hound ran directly toward him, so many variables here.
In Law, the person herding the animals had taken all precautions against potential accident, So i can only presume the Judge had to make a decision based on his reference to our Archaic Laws and who did or did not observe them ?

I’m not familiar with the act you mention and I’d have to read it to see if it confers immunity against a claim for negligence. However, as far as I know, having the right of way does not absolve a person of the responsibility to take appropriate care, and in my opinion, that would include keeping the dogs under control.

You cannot control or” herd ” 20-40 unleashed (or even leashed ones in that number) dogs on a public road without posing a serious danger to the public.That is the reason you have to have even one dog leashed in a public place.Dogs are lithe agile creatures that bear no comparison to slow docile farm animals such as cows.How the people who brought the dogs on the road bear no responsibily for the consequences of their actions boggles the mind.Instead an innocent member of the public exercising his right to travel on a public highway bears the consequences of their actions.And its not just the tally hoes dogs on the road but their skittish horses and tightly mass parked vehicles on narrow country roads who also pose a hazard to the Public.And what for so that some members of society can engage in medieval barbarism!!

And as for the woman who sued,well she was part of the gang who brought the dogs on the road so really only has herself to blame when she ended up being struck by a canine scud missile.

I will try to find it for you, But as i see it, The pack would have consisted of about 20 hounds, Who would be usually very obedient to the Whipper in (No whipping of dogs involved here just a title ) Master and Huntsman, its very common that one hound might wander from the pack for a variety of reasons, fear, scent, curiosity, confusion, inexperience but that hound would in the strictest terms still be part of the pack.

I do appreciate how it would be deemed illogical, and every court hearing has sentences or lack of , which defy all logic.
There would be a certain amount of cases against various Hunts for varying damage that rarely reach court hearings, they would be dealt with ” in house ” so to speak, but the costs here were probably too high, Actually its unusual for any member of any club to sue their own club, It became common practice many years back for every Hunt member to sign a disclaimer, but everyone knew it held no legal title.

I would say the findings of the Judge might have been influenced by the fact that several other cars had stopped, some of those drivers might have been witnesses, we don’t know, So should Mr Ahmed have had the driving awareness to see that other cars were stopped so the freeflow of traffic was interrupted for some reason, would it not be just plain commonsense to slow and/or stop ? and that he ignored the womans signals ? What if the hound was some other object that was propelled into said woman, ?

Norma — A few points there.

First of all, I’m open to the idea that Mr Ahmed is partially responsible. What I don’t understand is the judgement that the Hunt has no case to answer.

If, as you say, the hound was some other object on the road, and its owner could be identified, that person would probably be found partially liable for the accident.

It seems to me that the Hunt has a duty to ensure that its animals can’t contribute to an accident, and in this case they were unable to do so, for whatever reason. Therefore, it seems to me, they must share responsibility.

If the Hunt had been able to keep the dog at the correct side of the road, Mr Ahmed would not have struck him and Ms Skrine would not have been injured.

Bock; This is something of a minefield, For people who despise or associate Hunting with eliteism it’s very black and white, and whereas i understand their point of view, I don’t accept judgements made on any subject that are not supported by evidence and facts, and that rule i apply to myself rigorously.
I have’nt had any involvement with any Hunt for some time now, but for a long time i did and it was completly connected to my livlihood and had no connection to any social exclusivity or eliteism, nor did i know anyone who had that kind of involvement.
However, to be of some assistance to you, can i suggest you look up the IMFHA website, if i can provide a link i will, but it basically comes down to the facts that a responsible Hunt will do everything possible to insure the safe passage of horse/rider/hounds/followers and most of all the general public, but accidents and variables will occur outside of a persons best efforts.
There is a very strict code of practice handed down and referrable to the IMFHA who would deal with Hunt matters, Hunting has been a huge source of rural social community support, employment,tourism and conservation for 140 years in Ireland, There is no comparison to old aristocratic adages to which it is associated, as i said previously that is the caricturisation of Hunting, not the reality.
William; there really is no such thing as a ” slow docile farm animal ” any animal when experiencing fear and disorientation behaves in a fear and flight manner per their instinct and can and have caused massive damage, injury and death to the public on roads.

Norma..hunts are not wanted in rural Ireland.There is no end of confrontations between farmers and hunts every winter.

Norma — May I draw your attention to this extract from the legislation you quoted:

“2. (1) In these bye-laws—

” animal ” does not include a cat or a dog ”

In other words, cats and dogs are not covered by these bye-laws. Therefore, under this particular statutory instrument, the Hunt has no special rights of way, and the driver has no obligation to stop or slow down. Likewise, the driver has no special duties when passing a pack of dogs.

I have searched for other Acts that might confer special rights on people with packs of dogs but haven’t been able to find anything. Likewise, I haven’t been able to find anything imposing special obligations on drivers to avoid cats and dogs.

William — I don’t want this to become a debate about whether hunts should exist. That’s for another day. This discussion is about the logic of a particular court decision.

Bock, There are too many intricate details of this case that neither you or I know, And the statue ref i pointed you to may well not have been used in this case, I still maintain it was more about Mr Ahmed not reacting either quickly enough or without realising that some significant danger lay ahead and ignoring all the signals of same, woman waving hands to indicate the nescessity of slowing or stopping and the total stoppage of other car’s, There is no coverage as to whether or not it was deemed careless or not.
The Judge in question must have been privy to measured marks on the road made by braking or not, also witness reports, I think Mrs Skine testified that Mr Ahmed ignored her signal to slow, and that may have been his only miscalculation, And what precise law or by law was applied I don’t know.
Its a bit of a freak case surely, there was hardly a precedent, don’t know either if the Judge had previously flying hounds to refer to.
What if the impact of the hound with Mrs Skine was what killed the hound, and the Hunt sued her for killing the hound, Jesus after all that I think i’m entitled to let my mind wander.
I should also probably ” go to ground ” for a while. like my friend Reynard, because i have a funny feeling that some of your contributers will now view me as some bloodthirsty neanderthal…….or much worse some total nob, which of course i’m not, says I ,

Norma — There doesn’t seem to be any legislation releasing the Island Hunt from an obligation to keep their dogs under control, and yet Mr Ahmed carried full responsibility. Why would you say that was?

Mrs Skrine was a member of the hunt, so if the hunt is made up of it,s members, she would be sueing herself. which I belive you can’t do
.Is this the reason the hunt had no case to answer?

De fan; As far as I know a member can sue, let’s say another member who deliberatly or inadvertantly causes damage to them, But i have never heard of such a case, I would think there is a neighbourly understanding that in such a movement of horses, hounds and people things can happen and i have had some personal experience of same but i would not sue anyone. and i don’t know anyone who has.
Bock; I could probably answer a lot of hunting questions for you, but regarding the specific legislation, I would’nt know very much about that, nor do i know if every individual Hunt is a legal entity, Every individual Hunt carries their own insurance, funded through membership, cap money visitors fees and local fundraising, The entire countrys Hunt’s have to abide by the IMFHA code of conduct, now whether or not this is always adhered to by individual members of every Hunt is doubtful, I have witnessed some very dangerous behaviour by some ” cowboy ” types who’s agenda is to show off while putting others at risk, thats relativly rare though, and when there are experienced fieldmasters bad behaviour would be dealt with. But in every club or organisation you get the asshole who has no regard for man or beast
There is also different types of hunting where different skills are required.
Every Hunt appoints people to act as safety officers for car, foot followers and the general public, whether or not the individual listens is something else, Also, if a hound breaks away and it is safetly feasible for a member of the hunt to bring it back they will, generally hounds obey the horn or the ” leave it” command, which is why i think this is such a freak accident, The Island Hunt in Wexford would be very experienced and disiplined.

Norma — The IMFHA’s code of conduct has as much relevance as the rules of my local tiddlywinks club.

What we’re talking about here is the law of the land.

Bock where the Law of the land includes specific Hunt behaviour I just don’t know, I have heard and seen some incidents that ranged from shotguns to damage of Farmers stock, I don’t know if every incident was dealt with appropriatly and I would be very out of touch now.
If the IMFHA’s code of conduct did’nt exist there would be chaos, it is relevant.
Personally for myself and my daughters who Hunted from a very young age it was about safety, regard and disipline, We bred our own horses and it was our livlihood, We had to give our youngstock experience of the Hunting field to make them saleable, that was dictated by the market, my son on the other hand hated everything involving horses, but liked to ” hang out ” to meet girls as he said !
For us it was paramount to bring our youngstock home safe and uninjured, and that in itself was a feat, I grew very tired of a lot of things related so changed direction, It does’nt really matter and I don’t know why i might be defensive but I learnt a lot about overcoming fear and bonding with an amazing species like the horse, I believe so did my daughters, it helped give them grit and determination and disipline, and for a long time we had good times, mixed with tough times but I would be very supportive of a well run Hunt, I do appreciate why people have difficulty with the whole scenario though.

Bock – as soon as I saw this post, I somehow knew my old pal Norma would be in on the debate!
To the best of my knowledge, all dogs, per the Control Of Dogs Acts, must be under “effective control” at all times in a public place. Only the prescribed ten restricted breeds must be muzzled and on leashes, and they don’t include foxhounds. Yet.
Various local authorities may have localised bye-laws requiring leashes, eg Limerick Co Council in respect of Lough Gur and Clare Co Council on all Clare beaches. Until the High Court provides an interpretation of ‘effective control’ your guess is as good as mine or anyone else’s as to what it means. On its face, this appears to be a case where the hunt as owners of the hound should have borne a lot of the responsibility, on the ‘but for’ principle – but for the fact that the hound was out of control, this injury may not have happened at all – the analysis of causation ceases once a ‘but for’ event is found.
I am forced to wonder what the judge would have found if Mr Ahmed had hit Ms Skrine with his vehicle, causing her to fly through the air on a spectacular parabolic trajectory and on landing on terra firma to thereupon collide with a large canine, to wit a female foxhound – could the hunt then have sued Mr. Ahmed for the foreseeable loss of their good hound?

Wait for the academic legal comment on this case. It will be like Padraig Nally’s first trial – conclusion – the judge had a bit of a brain fart that day.


Mr Nuts — We seem to be ad idem on this.

By the way, and I don’t mean to sound pedantic, but all trajectories under the influence of gravity are parabolic. (Provided you exclude the influence of air-resistance, obviously, which in this case would be fairly negligible, given the short distance travelled by the canine projectile and its relatively low speed).

Norma — Now that we’ve established that the traffic bye-laws don’t cover dogs, and the rules of the IMFHA are irrelevant, would you care to hazard a guess as to how the Island Hunt might have no case to answer?

speaking of trajectories it is very difficult to see how the dog could have flown through the air if it itself was on the ground when hit,it should either gone under the car or rolled along the ground in front of it if he suddenly braked to a halt on impact.The only forseeable way the dog could have flown through the air is if it itself was airborne when struck.As in leaping off a fence or similar at the time.In that case nobody could avoid it

William — That’s true. Dogs don’t bounce.

I’d be interested to see how much forensic evidence was introduced. A dog of at most 2 feet high would not fly upwards when struck, unless the car had a cartoon cattle-scoop on the front.

A number of factors would be at play.

A significant amount of the impact would be absorbed by the dog’s soft tissue, and because the dog is not an elastic object, much of the kinetic energy would be absorbed by muscle damage, bones breaking and viscosity of the internal organs and tissue. So the dog wouldn’t bounce like a snooker ball.

If the dog was on the ground, it would be too low to be projected upwards. As you say, it would be run over, or wrapped around the front of the car.

So how did it get so high that the car batted it liike a shuttlecock in the direction of Ms Skrine?

I can only imagine that for something like this to happen, an animal the size of a dog would have to be jumping in front of the car, which suggests that Mr Ahmed was indeed taken by complete surprise.

In regard to the club thing, since one particular case in Co. Cork where a member (Or player) successfully sued his club, the case hinged on the fact that he wasn’t a paid up member. I know that all players are required to have fully paid membership in most clubs prior to being allowed to play contact sports. Again the reason seemingly being that the club comprises of it’s members and therefore one is suing oneself, if one is a paid up member, notwithstanding any of the necessary insurances etc.
How far this goes in Legal terms is of course anyones guess, totally dependant on the usual “Brain Farts” mentioned above. I must root out some info on that particular case, it involved a rugby club AFAIK.

Reports say the hound ” richoched ” off the bonnet so he could well have been moving upwardly, I knew a woman once who fell into a stone wall on a narrow road while trying to get out of the way of an oncoming car, she injured herself quite badly and the driver was found liable, yet the driver did not make contact with the woman.
I don’t think the IMFHA’s code of practice is irrelevant because it attempts to instill awareness in participants.
Hazard a guess eh ? Was there a law or by law referred to at judgement ? i don’t know, but i think i know what kind of guess you might like me to hazard, but i don’t do guesswork, i’m one of those who like to know what actually happens.
I don’t like the ” sueing ” culture, it’s not something i can really relate to, one of my daughters had a bit of an incident once out hunting and i just went straight to the gentheman in question and paid him for the damage, his car was damaged, the horse was cut, it was my problem not his even if he was parked in a crazy place, he had the right to park wherever he liked, my daughter was the one carrying the risk, plain and simple job done, nobody had to tell me what to do nor did i ask anyone, so thats my version of hazarding a guess.

Norma — I wouldn’t take a newspaper’s description too seriously. I doubt if most reporters these days would even know what a ricochet is.

Regardless what rules the IMFHA might have, it appears that somebody failed to keep the dog on the correct side of the road, and this was one of the contributory factors that led to the accident. Nevertheless, despite their failure to control the dog, its owners have no case to answer.

This is bafling. I know that if I allowed my dog to run across the road and it caused an accident, I’d be at least partly liable.

Bock you most certainly would and be found totally responsible I dont doubt.But sadly in Ireland verdicts are more a reflection on who you are rather than what you have done.As if we need to be told that by now!!

“The Law is an ass” in this case the Judge would not have had precedent. Therefore would have been at liberty to set precedent. As in “The case Skrine v Ahmed flying canine 2009” My learned friends and I feel that a substantial settlement against the Insurance Company would be appropriate. Money makes the world go around in every little way. This may help to get the Hunt banned.

I must admit I can see the funny side ,were it not for the fact that such cases make our silken friends millionaires at our expense. I am of the opinion that in litigation only the legal eagles win.

Gary…its not just the legal eagles its the whoile corrupt lot of the fuckers we support,the banks the corrupt business the hunt the politicians the hole fuckin lot of cunts we support.Why cannot we take our destinty into our own hands!! What is wrong with us?!!.

William; I totally agree with you on ” taking our destiny into our own hands” I also agree with you on the spectacularly corrupt and disingenious decisions made by bankers and politicians over the last few years, But whatever about destiny, We as individuals have to take responsibility for any contribution we made toward our own financial demise.
If we see ourselves as victims, then we will behave as victims and that will deplete us.
Whereas I can understand why you would lob “Hunts” in general into the fray of Bankers, Politicians et al, It does defy logic and reason, Hunting is an inflamatory subject but it is not supported by the taxpayer.
I think this whole ” flying dog ” debacle gained momentum because it was seen as a bunch of rich fat arseholes who have nothing better to do than indulge their bloodthirsty instincts, And avoided any responsibility for the accident which occured because they are just that.
My problem with that view is that it too makes no sense, using logic and reason,

The questions would be valid no matter who was involved. You might equally say that nobody would be talking about the case if the driver’s name was Murphy.

The judgement seems unbalanced and I have yet to hear a rational explanation of it.

I was involved a few years ago in a court case. A number of members sued our Union, they had been dismissed for , shall we say “misbehaviour” . We did our best to defend them but the court found them guilty as charged and upheld their dismissal. They then sued the Union for our lack of success in their defence . The case was found “vexatious” and dismissed. Council for the plaintiffs then questioned the matter of costs. The Judge ruled “ O the Union have lot’s of money , Against the Union” At the time the cost’s very nearly broke the Union. The point I am trying to make is that the “legal Eagle’s” shall always get their “pound of flesh” . even if it be from around the heart . Wonder why People have taken to the streets? Folks you aint seen nothing yet.
Norma I agree with your view. But what is wrong with “drag” hunting? As I understand nothing gets killed. As ever open to correction.

An ” unbalanced judgement ” in an Irish Court, what a shocker !
I would’nt ” equally say ” if the drivers name was “Murphy ” The fact that the drivers name was Abbas Ahmed and not “Murphy ” did not bring to bear on me at all,
I have in all sincerity tried to offer up an explanation of the judgement, Not in defence of anything or anyone, just what it was, a directional offering.
Because I cannot find a specific statute which covers the specic freakishness of the accident, I simply offered my view and/or understanding of the workings of a specific group, Now that will not satisfy anyone, But to try to explain the more traditional aspects of rural life is akin to speaking a different language, I am not referring to “Hunting ” there.
When describing the incident in your post, you wrote ” Any cretin can see, unless that cretin happens to be the Island Hunt ” Now I understand that the use of the word “Cretin ” was somewhat an “urbanisation ” of it’s true meaning, which is the description of a severe medical condition ” Congenital Hypothyrodism” and i’m being somewhat pedantic there, There is little left to my imagination that your view was influenced by the very term that you used to describe The Island Hunt.
Where my confusion about lack of reason and logic lies is that I don’t know whether or not you know the people who make up this group, The Island Hunt, maybe you do and your findings of them as individuals has led you to believe they are not acceptable to you, But if you do not possess any knowledge of these people, then your description of them as a collective seems to indicate strongly that you hold them in poor regard as a group, whether that is based on their choice of pursuit or as individuals is not clear.
The judgement allieviating them of any responsibility surely lies with Judge Kearns, and as far as i know it is possible to obtain court transcripts but I don’t know the process.

Norma — I’m trying to find logic in the situation. Rural custom and practice do not have any bearing on the matter. It’s about apportioning responsibility and it seems to me that in this case the responsibility was not spread fairly.

You take the comment about cretins out of context. I said it in the sense of “any fool can see that, even the Island Hunt”. It isn’t a slur on the health of the Island hunt’s collective thyroid.

Gary; I think the broader social conscience is lacking in this country and for sometime now we have become a very litigious people, I have a particular aversion to such, and i’m sorry to hear of your difficulties.
With regard your question on “drag hunting ” and this is my personal opinion, It is a very misleading concept, in that people who don’t know, believe that a man made ” scent ” of no animal origin is dragged across the countryside and no animal deaths occur, and this is not the case.
There is a vast difference between live and drag hunting, whereas live hunting garners all the bad press, , but drag hunting is more operable because agreements between the Hunt and Farmers can be specific as to route and a good huntsman and whipper-in can in most cases prevent the hounds from going live and entering lands they don’t have permission to enter.

Bock; I did’nt take it out of context, I stated clearly that I understood your use of the term used.
However, if it was’nt a slur and it was’nt a defined meaning, urbanisation or not, It did appear prejudicial.
Your site and your posts are largely very insightful, thought provoking and brave, I sincerly love the way you make people think, I don’t know precisely how your site works in the larger scheme of livlihoods etc but it looks to me as though your contribution to free thinking is outstanding.
I do believe that what we think is what makes a man/woman, who they are for in the words of Earl Nightingale, ” A man who does not think, might as well be a sheep, a camel ” or words to that effect.
But i’m very very picky about facts, So as to never allow to assumptions to take seed in what I consider to be my most vital asset to myself, my mind.
I don’t wish to entertain a prejudice or an unfounded opinion because to me it is very important that i keep moving forward, i don’t want to be halted with thoughts or views which might place obstacles in my way, I don’t ever expect anyone to share my views or values, I just want to remain open and learning, That is why i was questioning your term.

Norma with respect , I really mean that, I am of the opinion that we have both somehow “lost the plot” on this thread. People seem to think when they go to court they shall get Justice they shall not. They shall get Law. If the Law says homosexuals shall be hanged then so be it. If the Law says that Women shall be covered from head to foot in pain of flogging or stoning to death then so be it. “The law is an ass”

Norma — As I already explained, I don’t care who was in charge of the dogs. I don’t care if they were a team of huskies being driven by a long-lost Norwegian polar expedition. I don’t care if they were a pack of wild dingos belonging to Crocodile Dundee. It’s irrelevant. I didn’t make an issue of the dogs’ ownership, except to report the facts.

It’s not a question of who they belonged to. The same law applies to everyone. Whatever other commenters may think about the Hunt, it’s immaterial to me. If the dogs were under the control of Mensa, I’d still call them idiots.

Bock; A hunt operates under License, They hunt quarry with a pack of either foxhounds, harriers or on foot with beagles, In the strictest sense of the word ” Hunting ” some Hounds are bred to hunt alone, in pairs or as above, in packs, they would not fall under the criteria or legislation of the domestic dog, And that is where i believe a lot of confusion about this judgement lies, It may well be due to lack of very specific legislation or statute, but in law, tradition or otherwise, a stray hound does not automatically fall into the catogory of “lone dog” when through no design of it’s handlers it strays onto the road, And a handler is attempting to execute it’s return to the pack.
Hounds who hunt in packs are never leashed, In training they would be ” coupled ” as in linked to each other in pairs, which is why they are counted as couples not individual hounds.
In any law governing dog’s in general it is the responsibility of the owner to take every precaution to insure the safety of the public from their dog, However, it can be confusing but Hounds who hunt in regulated packs are not under this banner, And it must have satisfied the Judge that all criteria was in place by the handlers but due to unfortunate events an accident occured, It looks like the handlers just fulfilled their responsibility and the driver did’nt, There was in fact a very visible mounted hunt member on the road at the time, so therefore he was in term’s of executing his responsibility present and visible, and under no obligation to have the dog leashed, does that clarify anything for you ?
In point of fact a driver must obey the instructions of a herder or an individual mounted on a horse, when approaching same and that is in every rules of the road book.

Norma — Hounds are subject to exactly the same laws as any other dog, including the Control of Dogs Act, and hunt members are subject to exactly the same laws of tort as any other member of the public.

Norma…Hunting is by and large an activity engaged in by wealthy.There are many judges lawyers bankers and it indeed enjoys the support of many Fianna Fail TDs too as you see when they blocked all the green partys proposals on it recently.And that seems to me to be the reason all court cases regarding hunts seem to go in the hunts favour regardless of the logic of the case as in this example.You know the old one law for the rich and another law for the rest of us scenario.Its just another example of what we see every day in other areas of Irish life.

William;Why would you assume that ” hunting is by and large an activity engaged in by the wealthy ” Yes wealthy people hunt, so do middle income , people with adequate means and even people who have zero accumulated wealth, who live week by week, that is no assumption, that is absolute fact.
Hunting provides jobs and revenue and votes, so as in any other endeavour contributing to the economy it will recieve support for that reason.
So what if bankers, solicitors and TD’s take part in this activity, so do truck drivers, bartenders, secretaries, students, farmers, plumbers, electricians, steeleworkers, blacksmiths, gardeners, librarians, I could go on.

I just cannot get my head around judging people on the basis you describe, people are people, I could’nt give a rats arse what they have or what they have not, its all about them as people to me.
I agree with the sentiment that The Law is an Ass, but not the rich/poor one, Some people who engage in Hunting are downright amazing, kind generous and humourous, Some are ignorant self obsessed arseholes, completly regardless of their profession, job, bank balance or political preferences that has little to do with the activity, it’s about the person.
No activity has a life of it’s own, it’s all about the people, and who they really are, It was’nt too long ago that Rugby was viewed as the preserve of the elite, and that too held many undeserved untruths.

Norma…all I can personally state is that I have never seen a truck driver, bartender,secretariie,student,plumber,electrician,steelworker,gardener,librarian.Dressed in pink on horse back.Anyhow the reason that I see decisions like the one in this case and others involving hunts going in their favour when clearly the decision is bizarre and illogical.Has a lot to do with the status of a lot of the participants in that activity.I may be wrong but it is one plausable explanation.

William; Jaysus, this rain is very depressing, bit of comfort to you though, no farmer will let any Hunt on their lands in this weather.
I actually have a pain in my face from this, not you William, just the whole thing, i’m not even involved for about 7 years, I’m sure its just getting withering, I have at length though explained where i’m coming from, So I will ask you straight, Why or what are your views based on ? Have you had some bad experiences with people who Hunt or Hunts in general ? or do you just think Horses plus people plus hounds equals rich assholes ? Surely horses and hounds are totally inoffensive, so that leaves the people, surely an asshole is an asshole rich or poor ? what you think ?
If the Hunt bore no responsibility in the eyes of the Judge, why did the 12 mil cig smugglers walk away with no charges, was that status ?

Ok Norma will just answer your question and I will leave it at that.Bad experiences with Hunts (I am a landowner) and also I detest people who inflict suffering on animals for fun.

OK sorry, promise last post, William, genuinly sorry if you are experiencing difficulties with Hunt crossing your land without permission, I’m really out of touch but i know some Hunts have split so for landowners it’ can be like double trouble, If you absolutly forbid them to enter, probably with a legal letter and signs saying no hunting, no trespassing, but maybe you have done all that, They must be a very disrespectful bunch, Maybe a letter to the IMFHA might help, Its a huge concern for Farmers with livestock, no Farmer can afford that kind of poaching on their land in this weather.
Also if it’s of any use to you, don’t know if it’s drag or live inyour area, if it’s drag then it’s necessary to ask every farmer whose land they hope to cross for permission, if it’s live and you have forbidden them entry then it’s common practice for only the whip and maybe the huntsman to get hounds back, definitly not followers.
Things must have really changed, Would you try talking to some members of the local Hunt commitee in your area ? At one point I requested they contact me by letter to let me know when they were in my area to protect my own stock, they did but admittedly, i had to bring in all the stock, but they never crossed the land and were respectful, really sorry to hear that and I hope you have’nt sustained any losses.
Now i promise i’m done.

acording to the rules of the road. a driver approaching a person in charge of animals who gives a signal to slow down or stop must obey that signal. theres no distinction between different types of animals.

Will just break my word and reply to you on that Norma.It was quite bad.several different hunts some mounted and one foot pack, signs were ignored and as the land is some miles from my home it was difficult to confront them just arrive to find fences torn down and land plowed up,any that were confronted would claim the hounds had only” strayed” and behave in an arrogant manner.The attraction for them was a couple of acres of roughland that was left for wildlife there.Anyhow it was pretty appalling behaviour.

Perhaps the details of the case are overshadowing the facts; the driver has a responsibility to take all necessary care and attention in order to avoid an accident…in this case he was made aware of a potentially dangerous situation (he is approaching some cars that are backed up; there is a person on the road indicating that dangers unknown are ahead and signalling him that he should be aware of this; he chooses to ignore the warnings and proceeds to overtake the cars whereupon he falls foul of a dog, who then falls foul of his vehicle, causing the plaintiff to fall foul of the dog.

I suspect, but can’t say for sure that he was basically being found guilty of negligence and it is up to him to now file a counter-suit against the owner of the dog.

Let me put it this way; if it was a child that ran in front of the van, would we question this result?

Oops, guilty was the wrong word to use there, meant to say “liable” :(

But I still think the point stands, unless of course the situation was nothing like it was reported. And, I could be wrong, but when (if) the cops showed up, he would have been charged with dangerous driving as a matter of course and I suspect would have probably been found guilty of this, which would allow a civil suit to succeed whereas it otherwise would be hard to prove his negligence? Or have I got it all wrong, I’m not too hot on the law to be honest!

“Beware of airborne dogs” would be an awesome new road sign though.

He would not have been charged as a matter of course. The gardai might equally well have charged the dog’s owner with endangering traffic.

oh well, there you go, I did say I wasn’t too hot on the law, although a policeman did tell me some time ago that in case of traffic accidents, ALL parties are supposed to be automatically charged with dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention or something like that. The charges can then be dropped or pursued depending on the seriousness of the accident, or whether the donuts were fresh or not, etc.

Anyway. I agree that the dog’s owner could (and in my view perhaps should) have been charged with same, my OP was just to point out that perhaps there is not a right/wrong situation being discussed, more of a wrong/wrong. i.e, the dog should not have been free to roam across the road/jump in front of the car and the driver should have paid more attention when passing what was apparently a situation with the obvious potential for danger. That’s all.

I agree with you. It isn,t a right – wrong situaion. It’s about apportioning the liability and in this case I think everyone contributed to the accident, not just Mr Ahmed.

Hi Bock,
me dad used to tell me stories about a flying cat but this beats all. At
least the cat had some respect for the ladies of the hunt. That monster
dog should be ashamed of itself , did it not know one raises it’s cap not
it’s ire at such sport, even the fox would be disgusted at such low behavior
bring back the cat o nine tails, that’s what I say, Yours disgusted.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.