User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:22:22 PM EDT
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:23:51 PM EDT
[#1]
In before the Bundy knob gobblers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:24:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:27:01 PM EDT
[#3]
He should have insurance that covers that kind of thing. We do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:27:38 PM EDT
[#4]
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." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:28:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Open range state?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:30:39 PM EDT
[#6]
if Nevada is an open range law state then he is likely covered....
PITA to respond and incur costs....but he should prevail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:32:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:34:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:35:43 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:37:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:45:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:50:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:54:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wut? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 6:57:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 7:40:13 PM EDT
[#15]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 7:41:36 PM EDT
[#16]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 7:42:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 7:45:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is legally responsible for the fence? States job  They put it up . they maintain it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:24:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your post said he was liable either way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:39:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. ^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:50:39 PM EDT
[#21]
The driver is at fault and owes Bundy a cow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:53:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:54:08 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 8:57:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't a typo. I think he's in a catch-22 situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 9:01:08 PM EDT
[#25]
It's America. Everyone is getting sued. Lawyer up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 9:03:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 9:04:53 PM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 9:24:28 PM EDT
[#28]
That shit depends on state laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:04:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:17:43 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:41:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. This guy is cancer. but hey if you want to put him on a pedestal be my guest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:04:18 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.  You know who you're talking about, right? He's been in a legal shitstorm for a long time and he doesn't care. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
