The Rural Voice, 1999-10, Page 48Agrilaw
A farmer's duty of care
By Paul G. Vogel
The law imposes upon landowners
the responsibility for taking reasonable
care to ensure the safety of persons
entering on their premises. Many
activities performed in the conduct of
farm operations present some measure
of risk to the physical safety of farmers.
their families, and guests. Where
someone suffers injury. in what
circumstances does the law impose
liability on the farmer to compensate
for damages suffered'?
In a case considered by a trial court
in British Columbia, a six-year-old girl
was severely burned during a visit with
a farm family. To remove wasps from a
hayrack, the farmer had poured
gasoline on a wasp's nest and ignited it.
Sometime thereafter, after the farmer
had left the vicinity but while a tire
continued to burn beneath the hayrack,
the farmer's 12 -year-old daughter, in
attempting to throw additional gasoline
on the wasp's nest, inadvertently
poured gasoline on the continuing fire,
causing the tlames which engulfed both
BARN
RENOVATIONS
• Renovations to
farm buildings
• Concrete Work
• Manure Tanks
• Using a Bobcat Skid Steer
w/hydraulic hammer, bucket,
six -way blade & backhoe
DAIRY FARMERS
NEW TO ONTARIO
The ARTEX line of dairy
stabling equipment is now
available from Beuermann's.
Canadian -made.
Give us a call.
* ALL WEATHER SHELTERS
BEUERMANN
CONSTRUCTION
R.R. #5 BRUSSELS
519-887-9598
44 THE RURAL VOICE
the daughter and the young visitor. The
child suffered permanent disfigurement
and scarring. In a subsequent court
action, the trial judge found that the
farmer had failed to take reasonable
care for the child's reasonable safety
and awarded her
compensation for
her injuries,
deformity, pain
and suffering and
loss of enjoyment
of life.
On the other
hand, in a later
case considered
by the Manitoba
Court of Appeal,
the Court held
that a farmer (or
his insurer)
should not be
liable to
compensate the farmer's new bride for
the loss of her lower left leg in an auger
used in the removal of manure from a
chicken barn. On the day of the
accident, the couple had just returned
from their honeymoon and went to the
barn to clean out the manure in
preparation for delivery of a new flock
of chickens the following day.
Although the new bride had never lived
on a farm or, in fact, visited the barn,
she volunteered to assist the farmer in
the cleaning operation. The auger was
located below tloor level in an open
trench located approximately at the
centre of the barn running across its
width. After manure was flushed from
the cages with water under pressure, the
manure slurry was scraped by hand to
the location of the auger and
transported by the auger up a shoot and
into a fertilizer spreader. While
assisting her husband in scraping the
manure slurry into the auger, the
farmer's wife slipped on the wet tloor,
causing her left foot to become
entangled in the auger which resulted in
the loss of her lower left leg.
In reviewing and upholding the
decision of the trial judge, the
Appellate court had noted that the
farmer had warned his wife that the
auger was a dangerous piece of
equipment and that she knew the floor
surface was slippery because of the
manure slurry. With respect to the
farmer's duty to take reasonable care
for the safety of his wife, the Court held
that:
"The case against (the farmer) is to
be determined on whether he met
the duty of care required of him ...
While cleaning the chicken bam was
a new experience for (the wife), it
was the kind of task that required
little explanation or supervision. She
saw the way (the farmer) sprayed
the chicken cages and volunteered to
do that task. With the auger
operating and with the slurry of '
chicken manure on the tloor, I think
it was highly dangerous for her to
have proceeded down the aisle with
her back towards the auger. But that
is not the way things had begun. On
the occasions when he had observed
her ... (the farmer's) testimony was
that she had been proceeding in a
forward direction.
I find myself in agreement with the
conclusion of (the trial judge) that
there was no breach of the duty of
care (the farmer)."
To decide in any particular case
whether a farmer has breached his legal
duty to take reasonable care to ensure
the safety of his premises, a court will
consider all of the factors relevant to
the accident which has occurred.
Whether the court will impose liability
on a farmer for breach of this duty and
require him to compensate the accident
victim will depend upon the court's
assessment of the inherent danger of
the activity undertaken and the
measures available to the farmer to
have avoided the injury which
resulted.0
Agrilaw is a syndicated column
produced by the full service London law
firm of Cohen Highley Vogel and
Dawson. Paul G. Vogel, a partner in the
firm, practises in the area of commercial
litigation and environmental law.
Agrilaw is intended to provide
information to farmers on subjects of
interest and importance. The opinions
expressed are not intended as legal
advice. Before acting on'any information
contained in Agrilaw, readers should
obtain legal advice with respect to their
own particular circumstances.