Drink-driving loophole means boy's killer WON'T face court.

[Mystic Mock]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181620/Tractor-driver-hit-killed-boy-11-twice-legal-limit-police-t-prosecute-private-land.html

Twice legal limit farm worker was working on private land as tractor hit 11-year-old.

A mother has called for a change to the law after a drunk driver who killed her son could not be prosecuted because he struck on private land.

Harry Whitlam, 11, was hit by 50-year-old Gary Green’s tractor at tourist attraction Swithens Farm near Leeds, and died hours later.

The driver was arrested and found to have more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. But police were unable to charge him as drink-driving laws apply only to public roads.

After an inquest jury returned a narrative verdict, his mother Pamela, 48, said the ‘legal anomaly’ must be changed.

Outside court yesterday, farm owner Ian Broadhead said he did not think the fact his employee was over the alcohol limit had made ‘the slightest bit of difference’.

He said his ‘heart went out to the family’ but added that ‘accidents happen – and I’m a big believer in fate’.

The two-day inquest heard Mr Green had been drinking until 2am on August 9, 2013, before going to work on the farm, where he had been an employee for 30 years.

Harry, who helped feed animals on the farm while his mother worked as a cook, is believed to have walked out of a barn and been hit by Mr Green reversing a tractor and trailer.

A police traffic collision expert said the boy would have been visible in the driver’s mirrors for ‘three to four seconds’ but would have been in a blind spot at the moment of impact.

A breathalyser test at the scene showed Mr Green had 90 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 35 micrograms.

He was not at the inquest in Leeds on medical grounds. But in a statement read to the hearing he admitted drinking four pints in a pub after work the previous day, before ‘some cans’ of beer while watching television until 2am.

He said he did not have anything to drink between waking up and driving the tractor.
Scene: Harry was playing on Swithens Farm in Rothwell, West Yorkshire, where his mother Pamela Whitlam worked in the cafe on the day of the accident
+7

Scene: Harry was playing on Swithens Farm in Rothwell, West Yorkshire, where his mother Pamela Whitlam worked in the cafe on the day of the accident
Heartache: Harry's mother Pamela broke down in tears outside Leeds Coroners Court today
+7
Heartache: Harry's mother Pamela broke down in tears outside Leeds Coroners Court today
+7

Heartache: Harry's mother Pamela broke down in tears outside Leeds Coroners Court today
Shared her memories: Pamela said Harry loved to visit the farm and often helped out after school and during holidays
+7

Shared her memories: Pamela said Harry loved to visit the farm and often helped out after school and during holidays

Detective Sergeant Ben Kemp told the inquest that during a police interview, Mr Green said: ‘Nobody should be down there [on that area of the farm]. I don’t know where he came from. I just didn’t know he was there.’
HEARTBREAKING STATEMENT OF HARRY'S MOTHER PAMELA

'As we approach the 2 year anniversary of Harry's death, we are only now beginning to understand the full circumstances surrounding the tragedy.

It has been extremely distressing for the family to listen to the evidence that has been presented to the Coroner and the Jury over the past 2 days.

In particular, the fact that the driver of the tractor was over twice the legal limit when tested at the police station some 2 hours after the collision.

Plus in the police investigator's opinion, Harry was there to be seen had the appropriate observations been made, both before and during the manoeuvre.

It is a legal anomaly that because the accident took place on private property, rather than a public road or public place, there can be no criminal prosecution arising from Harry's death.

The family believe that there should be a change in the law so that it is illegal to be in control of a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, wherever that vehicle may be.

However, we hope that the evidence heard at the inquest will be considered as part of the ongoing HSE investigation into the case.

Harry adored spending time at Swithens Farm. He was never happier than when he was around the animals he loved.

Harry will live on forever in the our hearts and we will always cherish the memories of the precious, if all too short time that we spent together.'

DS Kemp said he smelt alcohol on Mr Green’s breath at the scene, but added: ‘Offences under the Road Traffic Act can only be on a public road.

‘The police worked with the CPS and they determined the incident had not happened on a public road and were unable to prosecute Mr Green.’

Mr Broadhead said the driver had ‘appeared to be just his normal self’ on the morning of the tragedy, adding: ‘I don’t believe that he was drunk.’

The jury’s verdict read: ‘For reasons unclear and whilst unsupervised, Harry entered the working area of the farm and was struck by a tractor and slurry trailer. The driver of the tractor provided a positive breath test at the scene.’

Coroner Kevin McLaughlin told Harry’s family: ‘You have suffered an immense tragedy and I extend my sympathies. I hope you remember the happy times Harry spent at the farm and not the gruesome events we have heard here today.’

A statement read by the family’s solicitor said: ‘It has been extremely distressing for the family to hear the evidence. In particular, the fact the driver was over twice the legal limit … Plus, that Harry was there to be seen, had the appropriate observations been made.

‘It is a legal anomaly that because the accident took place on private property there can be no criminal prosecution arising from Harry’s death.

‘The family believe there should be a change in the law … we hope the evidence heard will be considered as part of the ongoing [Health and Safety Executive] investigation into the case.’

The lawyer added that Harry was ‘never happier than when he was around the animals he loved’. The law states a motorist can be prosecuted for drink-driving only if they are on a road accessible to the public. Swithens Farm is private and the part where the incident happened was not open to the public.
Farm owner: Ian Broachead, the owner of Swithens Farm said that on the morning of the tragedy, Mr Green 'appeared to be just his normal self
+7
Narrative verdict: Despite tractor driverGary Green being twice over the legal drive limit, he cannot be prosecuted for the incident as it occurred on private land
+7

Narrative verdict: Despite tractor driver Gary Green being twice over the legal drive limit, he cannot be prosecuted for the incident as it occurred on private land. Pictured left, farm owner, Ian Broachead.

What a silly law to stop justice from happening.

At the end of the day when you're drunk you know that you could potentially hurt someone, if that happens then you get locked up, it's as simple as that for me.

[Nedusa]

This was a tragic accident , trying to persecute the driver because he had had a few beers the night before is just vengeful and will not bring the boy back.

He is lucky he was on private land though or the state would be pushing for death by dangerous driving or careless driving and he would have to pay big time for this accident.

[bots]

Whether the driver was drunk or not on private land is not the only point of relevance. There are numerous laws around health and safety at work which could result in prosecution for the driver and the owner of the business.

[joeysteele]

Amazing someone can be 'under the influence of drink' and kill someone by their 'negligence',then not even get charged with anything.

If my Dog attacked someone in my/his drive/garden,I could well go to jail for that and him get put down,depending on the seriousness of the attack.

Crazy laws and even more crazy loopholes.
Maybe those responsible for employing' the worker should be the one/s prosecuted for not making sure he was competent and sober enough to be in charge of any machinery in the first place.

[Kizzy]

This was a tragic accident , trying to persecute the driver because he had had a few beers the night before is just vengeful and will not bring the boy back.

He is lucky he was on private land though or the state would be pushing for death by dangerous driving or careless driving and he would have to pay big time for this accident.

It wasn't an accident, someone was culpable... the drunk.
If the laws for dog attacks on private property can be changed then this can too, hopefully before anyone else dies.

[bots]

Amazing someone can be 'under the influence of drink' and kill someone by their 'negligence',then not even get charged with anything.

If my Dog attacked someone in my/his drive/garden,I could well go to jail for that and him get put down,depending on the seriousness of the attack.

Crazy laws and even more crazy loopholes.
Maybe those responsible for employing' the worker should be the one/s prosecuted for not making sure he was competent and sober enough to be in charge of any machinery in the first place.

Well this is it, driving a motor vehicle on private land doesn't need a licence, tax or insurance, so those particular related laws do not apply. That doesn't mean that the "accused" can't be prosecuted under different laws. I am sure relatives will be looking in to alternative options.

[Nedusa]

It wasn't an accident, someone was culpable... the drunk.
If the laws for dog attacks on private property can be changed then this can too, hopefully before anyone else dies.

Reading this story it is clear it was an accident drunk or sober would not have stopped this happening.

Also he may have had a high morning reading but he was not drunk..

[Kizzy]

Reading this story it is clear it was an accident drunk or sober would not have stopped this happening.

Also he may have had a high morning reading but he was not drunk..

He had over the legal limit of alcohol in his system, you may not feel that had an impact or impaired his driving, however many would.

[smudgie]

Not a clue how they got away with it on the grounds that it is private land...considering that it is actually open to the public, surely they should be responsible for the safety of the said publc then.
If he was still double the limit then of course his reflexes etc would not be as should either.
I would be looking to sue, the heartless ruddy owner would be top of the list.

[GypsyGoth]

I always thought the law applied whether you were on private or public land.

[SHUTTLEPAK]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181620/Tractor-driver-hit-killed-boy-11-twice-legal-limit-police-t-prosecute-private-land.html



What a silly law to stop justice from happening.

At the end of the day when you're drunk you know that you could potentially hurt someone, if that happens then you get locked up, it's as simple as that for me.
Is the owner of the farm not potentially culpable on two counts
1. As the owner of a mixed working farm and family fun farm there should have been sufficient "barriers in place to ensure that children cannot gain access to the "working farm " area.

2. In any line of business, if faulty equipment or buildings are found to have contributed to injury or death then the owners/directors of the organisation can be held criminally negligent. Irrespective of the fact that the driver of the tractor was not on a public road, the fact that the owner allowed somebody who was over twice the legal alcohol limit to drive a tractor in a vicinity where members of the public had access to, is just as much an offence as if the tractor had no brakes or some other serious fault.

[SHUTTLEPAK]

"Ian Broadband, the owner, said " he did not think the fact that his employee was over the alcohol limit had made the slightest bit of difference"

[MTVN]

Seems like a tragic accident for everyone involved. You would not think that having a few pints the night before working on a farm where you've been for 30 years would ever result in this and by the sounds of it it was not proven that his alcohol level was the primary cause of the death, an unsupervised young child on a working farm behind a tractor reversing with a large trailer is a recipe for disaster at the best of times. The driver will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

[Kizzy]

'A breathalyser test at the scene showed Mr Green had 90 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 35 micrograms.

He was not at the inquest in Leeds on medical grounds. But in a statement read to the hearing he admitted drinking four pints in a pub after work the previous day, before ‘some cans’ of beer while watching television until 2am.'

He was almost 3 times over and had been drinking until 2am, it's not a stretch to presume his reactions would be affected by this.

[Withano]

Controversial opinion but would it be unfair to prosecute the man for drunk driving if they dont prosecute the woman for breaking an entrance onto private land?

[Tom4784]

Seems like a tragic accident for everyone involved. You would not think that having a few pints the night before working on a farm where you've been for 30 years would ever result in this and by the sounds of it it was not proven that his alcohol level was the primary cause of the death, an unsupervised young child on a working farm behind a tractor reversing with a large trailer is a recipe for disaster at the best of times. The driver will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

I agree with this tbh.

[Kizzy]

oQtTREndJKk

[Livia]

Seems like a tragic accident for everyone involved. You would not think that having a few pints the night before working on a farm where you've been for 30 years would ever result in this and by the sounds of it it was not proven that his alcohol level was the primary cause of the death, an unsupervised young child on a working farm behind a tractor reversing with a large trailer is a recipe for disaster at the best of times. The driver will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

I agree with this.

We have a family close to me who own a farm and lost a two year old when his grandfather backed a tractor and trailer and accidentally drove over him. He was sober. Farms are dangerous places. I feel very sorry for the child and for the family in this story but you wouldn't allow your child to play unsupervised in a car park... which would also be classed as private land.

[joeysteele]

'A breathalyser test at the scene showed Mr Green had 90 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 35 micrograms.

He was not at the inquest in Leeds on medical grounds. But in a statement read to the hearing he admitted drinking four pints in a pub after work the previous day, before ‘some cans’ of beer while watching television until 2am.'

He was almost 3 times over and had been drinking until 2am, it's not a stretch to presume his reactions would be affected by this.

Well as I said before as to what I could get and what would happen to my Dog now were someone to get attacked by him in our own garden.
Then I 100% agree with you,any loss of life of a child is not acceptable and if this worker had been drinking until 2 am after already been out drinking too, then he should not have ever been in charge of anything mechanical the next day and certainly not driving anything,private land or otherwise, whatsoever.

[Gabriel73]

I agree with everyone’s views and especially that you can’t simply compensate someone’s life with any quantum of punishment or money and the worst part is that he is let go due to the loophole. I have worked with a Los Angeles DUI attorney (http://www.duilawyerlosangeles.com/) and things worked quite differently there. I think it’s high time we must evolve our laws to plug such loopholes.

[Ninastar]

I think I'm the only one who understands why the farmer wasn't charged. It's his own private land... He didn't expect a child to be playing in his fields (which could count as trespassing) and he has the right to put his own self in as much danger as he likes. Stupid, but he now has to suffer with this for the rest of his life, which I'm sure is punishment enough.

[Kizzy]

'As we approach the 2 year anniversary of Harry's death, we are only now beginning to understand the full circumstances surrounding the tragedy.

It has been extremely distressing for the family to listen to the evidence that has been presented to the Coroner and the Jury over the past 2 days.

In particular, the fact that the driver of the tractor was over twice the legal limit when tested at the police station some 2 hours after the collision.

Plus in the police investigator's opinion, Harry was there to be seen had the appropriate observations been made, both before and during the manoeuvre.

It is a legal anomaly that because the accident took place on private property, rather than a public road or public place, there can be no criminal prosecution arising from Harry's death.'

I understand the child was killed needlessly.

[Livia]

I think I'm the only one who understands why the farmer wasn't charged. It's his own private land... He didn't expect a child to be playing in his fields (which could count as trespassing) and he has the right to put his own self in as much danger as he likes. Stupid, but he now has to suffer with this for the rest of his life, which I'm sure is punishment enough.

I agree totally. But there are too many armchair lawyers who can't grasp the simplicity of this case. The child was on private land. As far as I can see there weren't any witnesses so all the opinions are guesswork. The fact the driver was over the legal limit doesn't mean he was "drunk" and even if he was, he was on private land. People want to make someone pay for the loss of the little boy, but sadly, the parents were partly to blame for allowing him to play on private land belonging to a working farm, and farms are dangerous places. Like I said earlier, you wouldn't allow a child to play in a car park, this is no different.

That said, I am very sorry for the parents' loss.

[Kizzy]

Was the part the parents were to blame greater than the part played by the drunk tractor driver who wasn't looking where he was going.
This case is simple in as much as if he had been on a public highway the guy would be in jail now.
Nobody has to be a lawyer to read the points of an inquiry and have an opinion, it's a discussion forum.

[Nedusa]

I think I'm the only one who understands why the farmer wasn't charged. It's his own private land... He didn't expect a child to be playing in his fields (which could count as trespassing) and he has the right to put his own self in as much danger as he likes. Stupid, but he now has to suffer with this for the rest of his life, which I'm sure is punishment enough.

Thank you.... Finally a sensible and well reasoned post without all the bleeding heart brigade.

He was on his own land private so could basically do what he wants put his own life at risk it's his business

[joeysteele]

Thank you.... Finally a sensible and well reasoned post without all the bleeding heart brigade.

He was on his own land private so could basically do what he wants put his own life at risk it's his business

Certainly, put his own life at risk,no problem with that but not other peoples and not childrens.
Plenty farms existed where I was brought up and we played on the land,never at any threat from farmers or farm workers either.

Do you,with full respect, take this same line as to people in their own homes with their own gardens and having a dog, who if someone comes into the garden uninvited,then gets attacked by the dog,and is injured or killed, then the dog gets put down and the owner could go to prison.
Is that not private land too.

No worker over the limit as to alcohol in their blood should even be in the workplace at all, never mind driving anything or operating any machinery.
That is not being an armchair lawyer but it is usually overall a company and legal policy.

[Kizzy]

Thank you.... Finally a sensible and well reasoned post without all the bleeding heart brigade.

He was on his own land private so could basically do what he wants put his own life at risk it's his business

Hmmm the owner wasn't the one who killed the boy, bleeding hearts read the article :smug:

[AnnieK]

I am a bit torn on this. I learnt to drive in private land aged 16.....as I knew and my parents knew it wasn't illegal to drive there and saved a **** load of ,only on expensive lessons. Private land and most farm land is just that...private and so I can understand the law view on this. How ever.....as the parent of a 4 year old I can also understand the patents need for someone to be culpable and whether the law was on on the drivers side or not, someone WOULD HAVE to pay for my sons life. Be that the person driving the tractor or me for allowing him to play unattended in a farm field.....

[Nedusa]

[/B]

Certainly, put his own life at risk,no problem with that but not other peoples and not childrens.
Plenty farms existed where I was brought up and we played on the land,never at any threat from farmers or farm workers either.

Do you,with full respect, take this same line as to people in their own homes with their own gardens and having a dog, who if someone comes into the garden uninvited,then gets attacked by the dog,and is injured or killed, then the dog gets put down and the owner could go to prison.
Is that not private land too.

No worker over the limit as to alcohol in their blood should even be in the workplace at all, never mind driving anything or operating any machinery.
That is not being an armchair lawyer but it is usually overall a company and legal policy.

Ok joey, I'll grant you have a point as he was working on somebody else's land and as such should have respected his employers basic rights ie right to have his workers in a fit state to work on his land. Also it could of been the owners children who he killed accidentally. So I'm changing my view on this , this worker does need to face prosecution of some sort to answer for his actions.

[joeysteele]

Ok joey, I'll grant you have a point as he was working on somebody else's land and as such should have respected his employers basic rights ie right to have his workers in a fit state to work on his land. Also it could of been the owners children who he killed accidentally. So I'm changing my view on this , this worker does need to face prosecution of some sort to answer for his actions.

Thank you Nedusa, if this had been one of my children, (if I ever have any), or any child connected to my family, I would be pushing really hard for his prosecution.
He knew what he had been drinking and also that he had been drinking until the early hours of the day he 'knew' he was to work too.

Well done to you too for the point you made as to had it been the owners child.
A point missed but very relevant and I doubt he would have got away with no prosecution or still hold his job in that instance.

Really strong point that one,well pointed out.

[Livia]

[/B]

Certainly, put his own life at risk,no problem with that but not other peoples and not childrens.
Plenty farms existed where I was brought up and we played on the land,never at any threat from farmers or farm workers either.

Do you,with full respect, take this same line as to people in their own homes with their own gardens and having a dog, who if someone comes into the garden uninvited,then gets attacked by the dog,and is injured or killed, then the dog gets put down and the owner could go to prison.
Is that not private land too.

No worker over the limit as to alcohol in their blood should even be in the workplace at all, never mind driving anything or operating any machinery.
That is not being an armchair lawyer but it is usually overall a company and legal policy.

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

[Kizzy]

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

This man was not sober, and he was in charge of a very dangerous piece of equipment at work.. where does the law stand on that?

[joeysteele]

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

I think you have misunderstood my post Livia, I was using the example of the new law where if someone comes into my garden,on my private land and my dog were to injure or kill them, then I myself would likely end up in prison and the dog be put down.
Despite that person coming uninvited on to my private land.

Of course I am responsible for what my dog does in public places and on others private but now it seems I have to also put up with others coming onto my private land 'uninvited' and even possibly 'unwelcome',and in fact land which is my pets territory too but would then have to pay the heavy consequences for whatever tragic incident may happen because of that.

I still stand by that in any workplace for the protection of others,or in fact equipment, no one who has been drinking and is over a legal limit, should be driving anywhere or operating any machinery.
To me that is wrong and if I were a employer anyone I found doing so would be dismissed,for the simple fact of protection of my possessions and equipment, for mine and the safety of my family and for the protection of others.

Someone who has been drinking and is over the limit, will have reduced reaction time and also not the wisest reaction decisions to events either, on private land or otherwise.
This was,in addition to being private land also a workplace, which means to me at any rate, any worker needs to be in full control of himself and not under the influence of any drink or drugs while working on same land and operating or driving any machinery.

The law as we both know can be manipulated by powerful beings and really good lawyers,the law does not always get things right at all and I do not and will never subscribe to a view that a loss of life of a child in any circumstances, should not have some consequences,the fact the person that killed the child,yes killed the child, had been drinking for hours before and even then still into the early hours of his work day too,makes it even worse for me.
The law needs badly changing and it can be since the example I show of how the law has now changed as to dogs on their own private land has,this needs to apply to anyone in any environment so that they are held responsible for what occurs.

This is a loophole that badly needs scrapping as to law,I could understand it a little more had he been totally sober with no other issues, the fact he had been drinking should have removed that loophole for me and either he or the Farmer who employed him should be responsible.

As I said, as a child I regularly played on farms,the Farmers did not mind,nor the workers.
It wouldn't matter how careful you may have been, if you have been drinking and are over the limit, your senses will naturally be impaired.

No, a hard line from me on this one, he was,in my opinion, responsible for the death of that child and someone should have to answer for same.
Parents should know where their children are and instruct them more but there is little you can do if they come across people who are not in any way responsible and make sure they are in full control of themselves in any workplace.
This is a very bad loophole and one of the many things needing changing in law.

[Livia]

I see your point about the dog, Joey. I can't really equate it to this subject because it's a totally different issue. Someone entering your home and your dog biting them is not the same as a small, unaccompanied, unsupervised child playing on what is essentially a dangerous workplace. The parents have to take some of the responsibility.

I think this is one on which we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Kizzy]

It is also a tourist attraction... if a child was hurt due to a drunk fairground assistants actions then wouldn't there be more questions asked?

[joeysteele]

It is also a tourist attraction... if a child was hurt due to a drunk fairground assistants actions then wouldn't there be more questions asked?

It should be.
A fairground is a public place however but none-the-less a workplace.

That farmworker, well over the legal limit could have had to actually go on to publlc roads as part of his days work too.
That is why he should never have been allowed to work that day at least.

No, I am bull headed on this one,he killed that child, maybe he is tortured by the event night after night as to it, if he is then rightly so for me.
No sympathy.

He had the onus of responsibility for himself to say to his boss, he felt he could be over the limit alcohol wise and should he stay at work that day or go.
Sorry, no sympathy from me for him and I would have actually loved to be the one prosecuting him.

[Mystic Mock]

He would've known that the child was on the Farm as well and he still wasn't responsible in the way that he was driving.

[Livia]

The part of the farm open to visitors would have to have public liability insurance, as would a fairground. The child wasn't on the bit open to the public he was on private land.

I have no sympathy for the driver and all the sympathy in the world for the child and his family. Even so, the law is clear.

[Mystic Mock]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Just see that 19 year old in Indiana thread.

[Mystic Mock]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Just see that 19 year old in Indiana thread.

[Livia]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Just see that 19 year old in Indiana thread.

That's quite different from this though, Mock. And that's the USA.

[Kizzy]

Is the OP asking for opinion from a legal perspective? that has already been reached during the inquiry I took it as from a moral standpoint he asks if you are drunk at work and you kill someone with a vehicle is it right that you're not deemed to be at fault?

The owners view that he didn't think the fact the man had had a drink mattered makes me believe he was used to seeing him in that state.
His comments that he was a 'believer in fate' was an odd thing to say.. it was the boys fate to be mown down by a drunk therefore the drunk can't be held responsible? :/

[joeysteele]

Is the OP asking for opinion from a legal perspective? that has already been reached during the inquiry I took it as from a moral standpoint he asks if you are drunk at work and you kill someone with a vehicle is it right that you're not deemed to be at fault?

The owners view that he didn't think the fact the man had had a drink mattered makes me believe he was used to seeing him in that state.
His comments that he was a 'believer in fate' was an odd thing to say.. it was the boys fate to be mown down by a drunk therefore the drunk can't be held responsible? :/

The other thing being missed here,is that this farmworker had worked 30 years it says, it also states that the child helped out feeding the animals on the farm and the child's Mother was a cook there too.
Therefore, it would appear this farmworker would have known there could be a child or children around at times.

It wasn't a wilful 'trespass' on private land by the boy, he helped out there and his Mother would have likely seen it as a safe place for him to be, since he had been helping feed animals before,so was known to all concerned.

It stinks, rotten, and there can not be in my view, and should not be, any justification in trying to excuse this tragedy from a drunken farmhand and his being incapable of avoiding alcohol hours before his workday.
The law has got this badly wrong in my view and the Farmer on about fate, is a disgrace.

[Kizzy]

The other thing being missed here,is that this farmworker had worked 30 years it says, it also states that the child helped out feeding the animals on the farm and the child's Mother was a cook there too.
Therefore, it would appear this farmworker would have known there could be a child or children around at times.

It wasn't a wilful 'trespass' on private land by the boy, he helped out there and his Mother would have likely seen it as a safe place for him to be, since he had been helping feed animals before,so was known to all concerned.

It stinks, rotten, and there can not be in my view, and should not be, any justification in trying to excuse this tragedy from a drunken farmhand and his being incapable of avoiding alcohol hours before his workday.
The law has got this badly wrong in my view and the Farmer on about fate, is a disgrace.

Yes if the lad helped feed the animals he would have had access to areas that the public didn't, the simple fact is the guy was under the influence and he just didn't look it states clearly he would've been visable if the guy had just checked... I wonder if the reaction would've been different if he'd hit the owner and not the boy?

[Nedusa]

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

I disagree , this private land is this workers place of work and as such must be treated with the same rules as anyone's place of work. That includes not turning up drunk and operating machinery which has resulted in the accidental death of a child.

No clearly this man is at fault and must answer for his actions....

[Livia]

I disagree , this private land is this workers place of work and as such must be treated with the same rules as anyone's place of work. That includes not turning up drunk and operating machinery which has resulted in the accidental death of a child.

No clearly this man is at fault and must answer for his actions....

I refer you to the last line of my quote that you posted.

[Northern Monkey]

[/B]

Certainly, put his own life at risk,no problem with that but not other peoples and not childrens.
Plenty farms existed where I was brought up and we played on the land,never at any threat from farmers or farm workers either.

Do you,with full respect, take this same line as to people in their own homes with their own gardens and having a dog, who if someone comes into the garden uninvited,then gets attacked by the dog,and is injured or killed, then the dog gets put down and the owner could go to prison.
Is that not private land too.

No worker over the limit as to alcohol in their blood should even be in the workplace at all, never mind driving anything or operating any machinery.
That is not being an armchair lawyer but it is usually overall a company and legal policy.

Although i see this as a tragic accident.This is correct.Pretty sure that if i killed someone at work with a forklift truck whilst i was drunk and i was breath tested then i could be in a lot of trouble.