[JEP]

Lao it said that first month is rent free for doing fencing so would this cover me

[sabrina]

Did you know the horse was a stallion ? My boy although just a 41in Shetland would go over or through any fence if the mare nextdoor was in season. As a stallion owner, if I was renting a paddock I would be making sure that all fencing was capable of keeping him in. I would also check that no mares were close to him for everyone's safety.  I have a neighbour who last year bought a pony mare and stuck it in the paddock right next to my yearling colt with only my fence between them. Lucky I was home and moved him. They now have put up their own fence but I have my boys well away on the hill. In this case I would have said my neighbour would have been at fault.

[midtown]

JEP, I've dug out one of our 'Short Term Grazing Let' agreements.
In it, we have the following clauses;

4.2 The Tenant shall not do or suffer to be done on the Holding anything which may be or
become a nuisance or annoyance to the Landlord or the owners or occupiers of any
adjoining land and shall indemnify the Landlord against any claim by third parties in
respect of any breach of this clause.

5 TENANT'S OBLIGATIONS

5.1 The Tenant shall not remove or alter any fence, hedge or other boundary on the
Holding and shall keep all fences, hedges and gates in proper stockproof condition so
as to prevent his stock from straying or being injured and shall indemnify the Landlord
against all costs, claims or demands made by the owners or occupiers of any
adjoining land or any other persons for damages or other money arising from the
escape from the Holding of all or any of the stock placed upon the Holding by the
Tenant.

5.2 The Tenant shall provide the Landlord with a copy of any notice or order affecting the
Holding immediately upon receipt thereof and shall immediately comply with any such
notice or order and shall indemnify the Landlord against all actions, proceedings,
costs, expenses, claims and demands in respect of any matter contravening any
Legal Obligation.

I realise it is a bit late in the day in your case, but may be handy for future reference.

[Small Farmer]

The simple answer is that if you keep anything on your land which could damage somebody else's property if it escapes then you're liable for negligence.  That principle was set in the mid 19th century (Rylands v Fletcher).  Contributory negligence would be a tricky one to prove.


So it all depends on who was responsible for the fencing.

[Lesley Silvester]

But if, as was stated, the fencing was done by the tenant, surely that puts him at fault?

[Kitchen Cottage]

Solicitor here 

Rylands -v- Fletcher doesn't apply here.  Its a case about artificial constraints of items on land and livestock doesn't fall within that.

For so many reasons... I can't see the basis on which you would be liable.

Easiest thing would be for you to ask the mare's owners on what basis in law you, essentially a third party to this event, are liable .... and then come back

[Small Farmer]

I disagree. Leaving aside that horses aren't livestock if my cows go through my fence into your garden and trample it I pay compensation.

[doganjo]

I disagree. Leaving aside that horses aren't livestock if my cows go through my fence into your garden and trample it I pay compensation.

Yes, so the animal OWNER is liable not the person whose land they are on.

[Small Farmer]

While the Animals Act liability of the owner is pretty clear the tests for the Rylands v Fletcher rule developed over the years suggest it might still apply in the case of a stallion.

[shygirl]

its an interesting thread. its easy to think it would all be in the contract but thinking back to when we leased our field for a year, the solicitor that drew up the lease didnt include anything like straying. just used phrases like good agricultural practise which is very subjective.
we looked at leasing a grass let through a mart, but there was a blanket ban on all lets on their books, for bulls - probably for this reason.

[Kitchen Cottage]

Rylands -v- Fletcher is a very specific line of cases on artificial containment. it is a subsect of nuisance (and not now strict liability) following the Cambridge Water case> More pertinently it  limits recovery to damage to interests in land.  Here the damage asserted is not to real property.  It doesn't apply.

Moreover there is a general principle against damage for conception, so I repeat my advice, before you expend money ask this person the legal basis on which the claim is made

[JEP]

after asking she said the nfu told her because I own the land and that i am responsible to keep it stock proof although i said in the contract he is responsible for stock proofing and maintaining it so what would be best to do now.

[doganjo]

Ask Kitchen Cottage fro advice and follow it through!