Home
> Legal Issues > General >
Ruddy ducks
Your Triumph and the Law.
Section : General
General Legal Issues messages
Posted By : Alastair Campbell, 03-Mar-2003,
07:52pm
I was down my local kneebreakers club on Saturday and an interested topic of conversation arose. Big Mervin claimed that Ducks and other domestic fowl have
right of way over oncoming traffic when crossing a road. Is this in fact the case?(By the way, sorry to hear about your drink problem, Mike. Try to keep
consumption down to about twenty one units per week and your liver need not die. Don't forget, you've only got one of them, take care of it.)
-
Posted By : Mike Crewes, 04-Mar-2003,
06:12pm
Alistair
Ducks do not have the right of way, but some other animals do. They are listed under section 25 Road Traffic Act, which details what to do in an
accident.
Things like dogs, horses, cows, etc are mentioned, but not things like ducks, cats, frogs, etc. It gives a definition of 'animal' under the RTA (sec
25). If you need the full list I'll have to look it up.
Regards
Mike Crewes
Cop Shop
-
Posted By : Jason Chinn, 10-Mar-2003,
10:47am
I seem to recall also that in civil liability matters animals can throw a spanner in the works when you're trying to aportion blame after an
accident. If for example you're driving down a country road and see a duck in the road, slam on the brakes without checking your mirror and cause
someone to run into the back of you, you could be held partially responsible for the accident. The logic goes that you owe a greater duty of care
to the humans behind you than to the beast in front. It's a tricky area and every case is different, of course the counter arguement is that the
following driver was not able to control his vehicle when an emergency presented itself!
Mind you, much delends upon the skill of your advocate - In my days as a trainee insurance clerk I once argued and got contributory negligence from
a motorist who was hit whilst parked because she was on a double yellow line and in my logic had brought the incident upon herslef. My opponents
conceded 30% until my boss kindly pointed out to me that I was completely wrong and just because someone was illegally or badly parked did not give
our Insured the right to go running into them with impunity! So I had to give it back, I was crest fallen.
Thankfully I don't deal with smashed cars anymore :-)
-
Posted By : Mike Crewes,
17-Mar-2003, 09:48am
Thanks for that Jason.
I have no experience, or training in civil litigation and you may well be right. Under the RTA the following driver will ALWAYS be held
responsible since he should keep a safe following distance.
There is often a disparity between civil and criminal law, so beware and make sure which you are dealing with.
Regards
Mike Crewes
Cop Shop