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.

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

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.....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Just see that 19 year old in Indiana thread.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.