It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cliven Bundy's Cows - are in the news again

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Sorry about the humor....

back on topic.


Night driving in the open range areas of Nevada can be an extra challenge, since, besides the reduced visibility, cattle often head to the roads at night to soak up the heat retained by the asphalt. It may come as a surprise to drivers in Nevada that if you do happen to hit a cow or other domestic animal on open range, it may be your fault and you may be held financially responsible for the injury or death of the animal. As stated in N.R.S. 568.360, the owner of a domestic animal running on an open range has no duty to keep the animal off the highway! They only have a duty if they negligently allow an animal to enter a fenced right of way.


source

I had to do a search on this as I was only familiar with Washington's open range laws.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AlaskanDad



Harry is a Mormon.

Well maybe a Mormon-Taliban.



What does this have to do with the original posted topic?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AlaskanDad



Harry is a Mormon.

Well maybe a Mormon-Taliban.



What does this have to do with the original posted topic?


I was adding some humor to a humorous post.

In fact, this lawsuit is humorous.

Accidents are tragic, but many lawsuits that follow are taken on by ambulance chasers.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad


the owner of a domestic animal running on an open range has no duty to keep the animal off the highway! They only have a duty if they negligently allow an animal to enter a fenced right of way.



And that may get Bundy in a pinch so to speak.

The claim could be "negligence". Maybe.

But maybe the State is "Negligent" as well.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Hold on, it's the states fault that the cow was out there so the driver can't go after Bundy but he can go after the driver for hitting it?
Shouldn't he go after the state cause it is their fault the fence wasn't maintained which lead to the cow getting hit?


This is the best argument I've seen thus far. If the guy claims the state is who the driver should go after, since it is their fault the cow was on the road, then how can he go after the driver when clearly it was the state's fault the cow got hit? It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Either it was or was not the driver's fault in my opinion. It sure does seem stupid though.

We have cows where I live in Texas, and lots of people have cows all over this area, and we always make sure to keep the fences up. And people who live nearby, if they see someone else's cows out or their fence down, they will usually go out of their way to figure out who the owner is and let them know their fence is down. We're not big ranchers or anything, and actually we just have horses now, but we never had a lot of cows anyway...My point is that we weren't constantly policing the property for damaged fences and whatnot, as rarely do they get damaged anyway. Recently someone rode up on a horse and told us he was looking for a cow of his, and that we had a fence down.

Now I think that if one of our animals got out and caused damaged, we would be liable. Open range might be different, but the entire idea just sounds dumb to me personally. Either you own the land or you don't. If you don't, then I don't feel your animals should be there, period. That is how the law should read. And if it is you land, it is your responsibility to keep the fences mended and in working order. Sounds nice to be able to make a profit off of cows when you don't even have to own the land or be responsible for the where the cows go or what they do. Make money with none of the responsibility. It sounds ridiculous.
edit on 9/20/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
So Bundy can claim personal property rights, but refuses to take personal responsibility for damage his personal property may have caused?



I supported him and the militias when they came to protect him, but he is turning out to be a complete hypocrite. Quit leaching off the government Bundy!



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: frayed1
Never had one of mine hit in the road, but I do know of others who have.....the owner of the livestock was always liable for damages and injury......At least that's here in Ga.......I do believe it varies from state to state, but from what I could find, most states, even the western ones with 'open range' consider the owner responsible, and have since the 1980's.

Surely there are some other cases that have set a 'precedent' ?


You just said there was precedent in your post. If that is how the courts ruled that is precedent. Never sell yourself short. Thank you.

Are the militias going to get called up again and set up sniper posts so Bessie the cow can cross the interstate highway when she feels like it?
Maybe some of them people who sang lovely songs when they had a job could come help out.


Rather than someone keep in his livestock on his own property or suffer the consequences of what happens when half ton animals turn into a bad driver's education example.


I have no precedent for the Nevada law and how the 'open range' angle would apply......Ga has no 'open range', so I know no one that has had that experience.........Surely there have been other Nevada civil suits over such incidents ....that would be the precedent one would cite. .....



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join