Posted by Sara R
on November 28, 2009, 5:25 pm, in reply to "What were the terms of the lease?"
Well if you go according to "grandfather" principles and the precedence set by civil court that removes liability from ranchers/farmers in regards to livestock dogs, and livestock Robinson is not in the wrong rather, it could actually go the other direction had there been no dogs that Legos could be held liable for any damages caused by the herassment of the sheep she was riding through.
Truly this is not a simple black and white case folks... Not even a simple lease aggreement, considering the forest service required that Robinson graze his livestock on that parcel. I guess ultimately it depends on what the recreation deal was with the forest service was and if/how it likely trampled rights of the rancher who'd been grazing his animals there for well over a decade.
If you look at it as a "who was here first" thought process which is more how the legal system works and also the logical thought process the rancher is the one with the "right of way" in this instance and legal blame lays on those who did not inform Robinson of the activities to be held. AFTER it was known there was going to be a problem the organizers of the activity should have made it clear to those participating that the dogs were there and to change their pattern or stop the race if they were unable to finish before dark when the dogs would be out and active...the rancher already kept the dogs controlled during the daylight hours...etc...
seriously...
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »