Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/5/2014 5:22:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2014 5:24:28 PM EST by ZMV]
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bundy-sued-after-car-hits-cow-i-15

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/state-faults-cliven-bundy-i-15-cow-crash

Bundy had not been served with notice of the lawsuit Wednesday, but he was familiar with the accident. He said it was his cow that was hit, but he denied any responsibility.

He said it is the state’s job to maintain the fence that keeps his livestock off the interstate.
View Quote


TLDR: Bundy's cows make it through a fence, get on the freeway, cause an accident, and he says the state is responsible because the fence was in disrepair.

Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:23:51 PM EST
In before the Bundy knob gobblers.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:24:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By ZMV:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bundy-sued-after-car-hits-cow-i-15

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/state-faults-cliven-bundy-i-15-cow-crash

Bundy had not been served with notice of the lawsuit Wednesday, but he was familiar with the accident. He said it was his cow that was hit, but he denied any responsibility.

He said it is the state’s job to maintain the fence that keeps his livestock off the interstate.
View Quote


TLDR: Bundy's cows make it through a fence, get on the freeway, cause an accident, and he says the state is responsible because the fence was in disrepair.
View Quote



Who is legally responsible for the fence?

Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:27:01 PM EST
He should have insurance that covers that kind of thing. We do.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:27:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2014 5:30:47 PM EST by operatorerror]
The results of this:

""It’s a state problem. It’s not our problem,” Bundy said. "We really feel bad when it happens. We sure don’t want it to happen. But we’re not liable.”

A spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Transportation said she needed to research the issue before commenting."

Will determine this:

"Bundy said Wednesday that technically he is within his rights to make a claim of his own against Beck.

"The person whose car hit that cow is liable to me,” he said."

And there it is:
"In a statement Thursday, Mary Martini, district engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation in Las Vegas, said that while the state maintains the fences along I-15 to "designate the right of way” and control access, "it is always the responsibility and liability of the owners to control their animals.”

The dispute could be headed for court."





Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:28:39 PM EST
Open range state?
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:30:39 PM EST
if Nevada is an open range law state then he is likely covered....

PITA to respond and incur costs....but he should prevail.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:32:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gopher:
He should have insurance that covers that kind of thing. We do.
View Quote


Interesting, then I have some questions for you.

Does the insurance policy state who is considered at fault in case an animal escapes (i.e., the policy does not cover acts of neglect, such as failing to fix a damaged fence)?

Does it outline what are preventable incidents?

Does it cover the damage to the cow, or to the person injured in the accident, or both?
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:34:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2014 5:36:04 PM EST by ZMV]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By juan223:
if Nevada is an open range law state then he is likely covered....

PITA to respond and incur costs....but he should prevail.
View Quote


Page 2 of this: http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/statepubs/epubs/31428003027154.pdf

" If an owner negligently allows a
domestic animal to enter within a fenced
highway right-of-way area, then the owner may
be held liable for any collision between a motor
vehicle and the domestic animal. Nevada case
law in Jensen v. Nielson, 91 Nev. 412 (1975)
found that NRS 568.360 does not impose
absolute liability on an owner of a domestic
animal for damage resulting from the animal
straying onto a fenced highway. In this case,
cattle strayed through a gate left open on
property for which the cattle owner had no
ownership or control. The court found that the
fact that cattle had entered upon a highway did
not justify inference that the cattle owner
negligently allowed them to be there.
"

Also, there is more information on trespass cattle on the same page.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:35:43 PM EST
NRS 568.360 Duties of owners of domestic animals with respect to domestic animals upon highway.

1. No person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or in possession of any domestic animal running on open range has the duty to keep the animal off any highway traversing or located on the open range, and no such person, firm or corporation is liable for damages to any property or for injury to any person caused by any collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on such a highway.

2. Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right-of-way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:37:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Page 2 of this: http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/statepubs/epubs/31428003027154.pdf

" If an owner negligently allows a
domestic animal to enter within a fenced
highway right-of-way area, then the owner may
be held liable for any collision between a motor
vehicle and the domestic animal. Nevada case
law in Jensen v. Nielson, 91 Nev. 412 (1975)
found that NRS 568.360 does not impose
absolute liability on an owner of a domestic
animal for damage resulting from the animal
straying onto a fenced highway. In this case,
cattle strayed through a gate left open on
property for which the cattle owner had no
ownership or control. The court found that the
fact that cattle had entered upon a highway did
not justify inference that the cattle owner
negligently allowed them to be there.
"

Also, there is more information on trespass cattle on the same page.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By juan223:
if Nevada is an open range law state then he is likely covered....

PITA to respond and incur costs....but he should prevail.


Page 2 of this: http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/statepubs/epubs/31428003027154.pdf

" If an owner negligently allows a
domestic animal to enter within a fenced
highway right-of-way area, then the owner may
be held liable for any collision between a motor
vehicle and the domestic animal. Nevada case
law in Jensen v. Nielson, 91 Nev. 412 (1975)
found that NRS 568.360 does not impose
absolute liability on an owner of a domestic
animal for damage resulting from the animal
straying onto a fenced highway. In this case,
cattle strayed through a gate left open on
property for which the cattle owner had no
ownership or control. The court found that the
fact that cattle had entered upon a highway did
not justify inference that the cattle owner
negligently allowed them to be there.
"

Also, there is more information on trespass cattle on the same page.



So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:45:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By juan223:
So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....
View Quote


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:50:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By juan223:
So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.


Wut?
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:54:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:


Wut?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By juan223:
So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.


Wut?


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 5:57:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Interesting, then I have some questions for you.

Does the insurance policy state who is considered at fault in case an animal escapes (i.e., the policy does not cover acts of neglect, such as failing to fix a damaged fence)?

Does it outline what are preventable incidents?

Does it cover the damage to the cow, or to the person injured in the accident, or both?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By Gopher:
He should have insurance that covers that kind of thing. We do.


Interesting, then I have some questions for you.

Does the insurance policy state who is considered at fault in case an animal escapes (i.e., the policy does not cover acts of neglect, such as failing to fix a damaged fence)?

Does it outline what are preventable incidents?

Does it cover the damage to the cow, or to the person injured in the accident, or both?


I think most of this was answered in the post below this one.
We have never had to use it so I can't give an honest answer.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 6:40:13 PM EST
Don't know about NV but here in NM, we are a 'fence out' state. It would be the highway department's (State if a State road) responsibility to maintain their fence to keep livestock off the road (their legal right of way ........... period.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 6:41:36 PM EST
Don't know about NV but here in NM, we are a 'fence out' state. It would be the highway department's (State if a State road) responsibility to maintain their fence to keep livestock off the road (their legal right of way ........... period.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 6:42:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?
View Quote


Your post said he was liable either way.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 6:45:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Powerkicker:



Who is legally responsible for the fence?



States job They put it up . they maintain it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Powerkicker:
Originally Posted By ZMV:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bundy-sued-after-car-hits-cow-i-15

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/state-faults-cliven-bundy-i-15-cow-crash

Bundy had not been served with notice of the lawsuit Wednesday, but he was familiar with the accident. He said it was his cow that was hit, but he denied any responsibility.

He said it is the state’s job to maintain the fence that keeps his livestock off the interstate.


TLDR: Bundy's cows make it through a fence, get on the freeway, cause an accident, and he says the state is responsible because the fence was in disrepair.



Who is legally responsible for the fence?



States job They put it up . they maintain it.

Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:24:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:


Your post said he was liable either way.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?


Your post said he was liable either way.


It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:39:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?


Your post said he was liable either way.


It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation.



Ohio. ^^^^^^^
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:50:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:53:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By juan223:
So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.


Wut?


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?



No...Open Range Laws mean you don't have to fence them IN, they have to fence them OUT...
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:54:08 PM EST
He's supposed to maintain the government's fence above and beyond his tax contribution?

Won't that get him harassed or even arrested? Generally, only government approved personnel are allowed to repair government's possessions.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 7:57:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?


Your post said he was liable either way.


It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation.



The only way he is on the hook is if perhaps it can be shown he has no right to graze there?....and if that thecase didn't the State and/or Feds lay claim to the cattle? If so perhaps THEY are liable...
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 8:01:08 PM EST
It's America. Everyone is getting sued. Lawyer up.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 8:03:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Interesting, then I have some questions for you.

Does the insurance policy state who is considered at fault in case an animal escapes (i.e., the policy does not cover acts of neglect, such as failing to fix a damaged fence)?

Does it outline what are preventable incidents?

Does it cover the damage to the cow, or to the person injured in the accident, or both?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By Gopher:
He should have insurance that covers that kind of thing. We do.


Interesting, then I have some questions for you.

Does the insurance policy state who is considered at fault in case an animal escapes (i.e., the policy does not cover acts of neglect, such as failing to fix a damaged fence)?

Does it outline what are preventable incidents?

Does it cover the damage to the cow, or to the person injured in the accident, or both?


In Tn, if livestock gets out of a fenced pasture or enclose, the livestock owner is liable.
If the livestock owner is trying to gather the stock back into the enclosure, they have the right of way. The driver is liable if they strike the animal.

We had a dairy farm for a long time and our insurance was clear on those points.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 8:04:53 PM EST
The trespass cattle that he was supposed to remove from the area?

He'll Sovereign Citizen the damage claims, ignore court orders, continue with the trespass, and just keep on doing whatever he pleases until he gets the armed confrontation he wants.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 8:24:28 PM EST
That shit depends on state laws.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 9:04:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2014 9:05:55 PM EST by not_sure]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By itsARanchrifle:
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By juan223:
So....the State owned fence in disrepair likely means CB is in the clear....


Maybe.

One argument is that the fence was not meant to control a cattle herd because nobody is permitted to graze that land. Therefore, by allowing his cattle to trespass on those lands, Bundy was negligent.

Another argument could be made that assumes Bundy DID have a right to graze his cattle there as he claims, and therefore he was also responsible to make sure the fence was in good condition.

That's why I think this is such an important development in the Bundy debacle... it could help define whether his cattle actually have the right to be there or not. If they do not, then he's liable. If they do, then he's liable.


Wut?


Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his family has been there since 1877, and that the federal government never had a legal claim on the area. If true, does he have a responsibility to make sure the fence between the grazing land and the freeway is in good condition? Is he responsible for keeping his cattle off the road?

He lost the "it's his land" argument in court.

Perhaps the cattle that are left will be ordered sold for restitution. As is, where is so the winner of the auction can collect them with in a specified time frame.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 10:17:43 PM EST
His best move would be to just let his farm insurance cover it and keep his head down.

Else he's gonna have a legal shitstorm whether he's in the clear or not. Insurance premiums are a lot cheaper then lawyer bills.
Link Posted: 10/5/2014 10:41:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2014 10:41:53 PM EST by Springer09]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
The trespass cattle that he was supposed to remove from the area?

He'll Sovereign Citizen the damage claims, ignore court orders, continue with the trespass, and just keep on doing whatever he pleases until he gets the armed confrontation he wants.
View Quote
100% right.

This guy is cancer. but hey if you want to put him on a pedestal be my guest.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:04:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Foxtrot08:
His best move would be to just let his farm insurance cover it and keep his head down.

Else he's gonna have a legal shitstorm whether he's in the clear or not. Insurance premiums are a lot cheaper then lawyer bills.
View Quote


You know who you're talking about, right? He's been in a legal shitstorm for a long time and he doesn't care.
Top Top