Hit a stray horse with my car, who's liable?

Question

I can't seem to find any information on stray livestock liability, can someone help me?
About two weeks ago my partner and I were travelling 100kms an hour along a highway at 11pm when we hit a large horse. The horse ran from the right hand side of the road, hit the front right corner of the car, smashed the windscreen and flew up over the car crushing the roof. We're extremely lucky to be alive and the car (first thought to be written off) is currently being fixed. We found out later that the horse was on agistment and the gate was left open which is how the horse got out. The insurance company has told us the owner is not liable and my partner will have to pay the excess. He was only a few months away from rating one for life. What's going on? Can anyone shed some light on why we should have to pay for someone elses carelessness?

The accident happened in Victoria

Answer 1

Hummmm, You would think that the owner of the horse would be liable. I will do some research and check back with you here.

What state to you live in, or where the accident happened?

I am assuming you live in Australia? This is all I found.

According to Australian Traffic Codes, the owner of the livestock is liable for damage caused by unrestrained livestock unless it is found that the driver was operating in an unsafe manner.

Check on the web for Australian Traffic Codes.

~faith

Answer 2

I'm in America, but who do you think is liable, the horse? I would think hitting a horse is no different than hitting any animal. They aren't responsible for their actions.

I'm sorry for your situation, it's unfortunate.

Answer 3

the insurance company is wrong on this account the owner of the horse is liable, for the animal and is liable for the damage his property (the horse) did to your car and any medical treatment that was uptained. if a fence was left open the horse is not a stray, i would uptain a civil lawyer and sue the owner of the animal for damages and your insurance company should know better this kind of stuff happens all the time

Answer 4

Any stock that is out on the road and does get hit by traffic, is usually the owners responsiblity and there for are responsible for the damage of your vehicle. If the horse is on agistment then I would think that the owner of the land who has the horse on agistment has also most responsibility.
Perhaps your insurance company feel that your partner didnt drive to the condition of the road ( being night ), and that although you were doing the legal speed limit, could have been for careful? Try ringing vic roads and asking them. I dont know entirely your situation but as the accident occured on the road, then TAC maybe able to compensate?
I do know farmers have liability for their cattle if one is out and does get hit by a car, and have to pay for damages.
If you find that you have not got any answers, then seek legal advise, as you maybe able to sue the land owner or owner of the horse for compensation of your vehicle.
Its sad when something like this happens as that poor horse is not at fault either, wrong place at the wrong time. In actual fact the person who has the horse in their care on agistment, I feel should be held accountable. But that is my opinion.
Good Luck

Answer 5

A friend of mine hit a horse in California in 1970 hit a horse in a fog at 3:00 AM the body came thru the windscreen and killed his wife. broke 3 disks in his neck too, and totaled the car. the horse was in an unfenced yard so the owner was not at fault, if pasture was fenced and horse had exited via a gate left neglectfully open, then owner would have been liable.

Answer 6

Unfortunately you are liable for the damage because owners of animals are not under any obligation to keep them on their property. There was a guy up here that hit a bull which wrote off his car and put him in hospital. He not only had to pay his excess but also had to pay the farmer compensation for loss of stock. It's a pretty stupid situation because if the farmer had been maintaining his fences properly the bull wouldn't has escaped in the first place. It's pretty easy to see who is in the wrong, but unfortunately the law just isn't on your side on this one.

Answer 7

I don't know where you are, but in Missouri the livestock owner is liable for it because it should have been fenced in. My brother hit a cow once and the farmer had to pay for it. The only problem is that no one wants to admit that it is their livestock after someone has hit it.

Answer 8

In the US (at least in NJ, but I believe basic insurance law) - The owner of the animal is responsible, logially - but according to insurance companies, this should be covered under your COMPREHENSIVE coverage, which should not increase your insurance rates if they pay out. Comprehensive coverage covers fire, theft, vandalism, acts of god, etc. They consider an animal an act of god because you can't control it (great news for those in the areas where deer run rampant). You should just have to pay your deductible.

Answer 9

For Legal Advise I always recommend this site where you can find all the solutions. http://INSURANCEANDFINANCETIPS.INFO/index.html?src=5YAofhgdDE281

RE :Hit a stray horse with my car, who's liable?
I can't seem to find any information on stray livestock liability, can someone help me?
About two weeks ago my partner and I were travelling 100kms an hour along a highway at 11pm when we hit a large horse. The horse ran from the right hand side of the road, hit the front right corner of the car, smashed the windscreen and flew up over the car crushing the roof. We're extremely lucky to be alive and the car (first thought to be written off) is currently being fixed. We found out later that the horse was on agistment and the gate was left open which is how the horse got out. The insurance company has told us the owner is not liable and my partner will have to pay the excess. He was only a few months away from rating one for life. What's going on? Can anyone shed some light on why we should have to pay for someone elses carelessness?
Update: The accident happened in Victoria
2 following 16 answers

Answer 10

As I see it the severe element is "the farmer who had a rope around its neck" whilst the animal grow to be being led, it grow to be not decrease than administration, If it have been donning a suitable headcollar it would desire to not have pulled away. So the farmer grow to be irresponsible, and at fault. inspite of the undeniable fact that the regulation says "in case you hit it with your vehicle its your fault." So it sounds like shared duty - the form of factor insurers could manage "knock for knock" you may desire to tell your coverage business enterprise of each and each of the small print. and of direction you probably did notify the police, as you're obliged to do? What did they permit you be attentive to? "many of the guidelines interior the line Code are criminal standards, and in case you disobey those rules you're committing a criminal offence. .. Such rules are pointed out by utilizing using the words ‘might desire to/shouldn't’. " fifty two in the previous you're taking a horse directly to a street, you may desire to NB "might desire to" .. verify you could administration the pony. fifty 4 you may desire to not take a horse onto a footpath or pavement, fifty 8 Animals being herded. those might desire to NB "might desire to" be saved decrease than administration in any respect cases. you may desire to, if possible, deliver yet another person alongside the line in front to warn different street customers, extremely at a bend or the foreheadof a hill. it fairly is safer to not circulate animals after dark, yet once you do, then placed on reflective outfits and verify that lighting fixtures are carried (white on the front and purple on the rear of the herd). So the farmer grow to be contravening the regulation by utilizing having them on a footpath or pavement.