The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently released details of the outcome of the prosecution of a Cornish farmer, Beverley Chapman, who was fined £5,260 and ordered to pay costs after failing to act following two separate cattle attacks on walkers along the South West Coast Path.

The first incident in June 2024 left a 75-year-old man with severe injuries requiring surgery. Despite being informed, Chapman then added more cattle with calves to the same field, increasing the risk. A second attack occurred a month later, forcing walkers to seek refuge near a cliff edge. 

The HSE found Chapman breached section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by not mitigating risks, despite having safer alternatives. HSE guidance advises farmers to avoid placing cows with calves in fields with public access and to implement controls like fencing and signage. This case underscores the extensive dangers posed by cattle with calves and the legal duty to protect public safety.

The case highlights a critical tension between agricultural practices and public rights of way, particularly given the challenge of the extensive network of footpaths crossing farmland. While farming traditions and livestock management are integral to rural life, they coexist with legal obligations to safeguard public access. Chapman’s failure to act, even after two serious incidents, reflects a gap in risk perception and compliance.

The broader issue is one of shared spaces and shared responsibilities. Public footpaths are not optional conveniences; they are protected rights. Farmers, therefore, must balance operational needs with proactive risk management. 

What makes this case particularly striking is the escalation. Adding more cattle after the initial attack suggests a disregard for both safety and understanding of accountability. From a societal perspective, this case also underscores the importance of the communication of risk. Walkers often underestimate the danger posed by livestock, while farmers may underestimate the liability they face. Clear signage, fencing, and alternative grazing strategies are often seen as burdensome on the occupier; however, they are essential safeguards.

In addition to the criminal sanctions seen here, farmers also face potential civil liability claims for personal injury compensation particularly in relation to negligence and liability under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. A statutory duty of care exists to lawful visitors, including walkers using public footpaths; a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, such as fencing or relocating cattle, may constitute both a negligent act and a breach of the Act. 

Occupiers must ensure visitors are reasonably safe. The presence of cows with calves, known to be protective and unpredictable, creates a foreseeable risk, especially where dogs are involved. In practice, such claims often hinge on whether reasonable precautions were taken. In this particular case, the availability of safer fields strengthens the argument for liability to rest with the farmer.

In addition, farmers and others with control of animals can face strict liability, under the Animals Act 1971, for harm caused by their animals. The Act provides very limited defences to such claims, which as a consequence are often expensive to investigate and defend and are always highly fact-specific.

Injuries caused by cows can be extensive and have been known to leave victims with life-changing consequences; with compensation running into the millions of pounds. It is therefore critical that landowners and tenants take their responsibilities seriously.

Key takeaways can be found in this case, and landowners and tenants alike should consider the following: 

• Risk assessment: review livestock placement where public rights of way exist.
• Preventative measures: implement fencing, signage, and alternative grazing strategies.
• Insurance review: ensure public liability cover is adequate for livestock-related risks.
• Prompt action: respond immediately to reported incidents to mitigate further liability.

This case is a reminder of the dual exposure farmers face ie. criminal and civil liability when they fail to manage livestock risks on public access land. With increased outdoor recreation, proactive compliance is essential to avoid prosecution and costly claims.

Clyde & Co’s Catastrophic Injury team is highly experienced in dealing with claims resulting from harm caused by livestock and other animals. Please get in touch with Pamela-Jane Riley, or any of your usual contacts in the team, if you would like further information on this important topic.