During the proceedings, the farmer and his insurance company argued that the accident was not his fault. The alleged pollution of the road had never occurred. Furthermore, Section 32 of the Road Traffic Act only applies to public roads, but the accident had happened on a farm track. And the driver of the garbage truck was largely responsible for the incident himself.
However, the judges did not listen to them. Various witnesses confirmed the plaintiff’s insurance company’s view during the evidence hearing: They stated that a few days before the accident, the farmer had left a thick trail of field residue on the road with his corn chopper and that it had rained in the days following. An expert appointed to the case described the course of events claimed by the plaintiff as conclusive.
Whether the road on which the accident occurred was a public road or a farm track played a decisive role in the outcome of the case. The reasoning behind the judgment states that on farm tracks, the standard to be applied to the duty of care is lower than on public roads. Anyone who drives on them must expect pollution from agricultural and forestry vehicles.
