Claim by farmer attacked by ‘mad cow’ at mart is dismissed

A judge has dismissed a €60,000 personal injury action by a 79-year-old farmer who “suffered horrible injuries” when impacted by a “mad cow” at a mart four years ago.

At Ennis Circuit Court, farmer, Noel Broggy told the court that he was flattened and knocked out when attacked by a “mad cow” at Sixmilebridge Mart, Co Clare on May 6th 2017.

Mr Broggy said the incident occurred while retrieving an unsold cow and calf of his from a pen at the mart where there where five or six other cattle also present.

Farming since he was aged 14, Mr Broggy said that he was “lying in a pool of blood’ on the ground after he suffered a head wound that required 13 stitches after the cow attack.

Giving evidence in his personal injury action against Sixmilebridge Co-Operative Mart Ltd, Mr Broggy told the court: “This cow went for me - I didn’t know she was a mad cow, I knew nothing about the cow.”

He said: “She hit me in the stomach. I was knocked out unconscious. I got a fair rattling off the ground. I was lucky enough that she flattened me where I was - that is what saved me.”

The court was told that after he came around, Mr Broggy was taken by ambulance to University Hospital Limerick where he remained for one night and two days.

Turning 80 next month, Mr Broggy said as a result of the vertigo brought on by the attack he wasn’t able to tie his shoe laces or wash his hair. His claim also stated that as a result of the attack, he wasn’t able to jive or dance.

Judge Brian O’Callaghan dismissed Mr Broggy’s case stating that no direct evidence was provided concerning the identity of the cow who attacked him.

Judge O’Callaghan said that Noel Broggy suffered ‘horrible injuries’ and “gave the most honest and clear cut evidence”.

However, he stated that the mart cannot be held responsible for ‘the odd beast’ who would surprise everyone with a bad turn unless there is a breach of duty by the mart.

The judge said that there is no breach of duty by the mart as there is no evidence that the system was bad at the mart in controlling access to animals.

Judge O’Callaghan said that even if he did find against the mart over permitting Mr Broggy into the pen, he found Mr Broggy at least 75 per cent responsible and dismissed the action on that point. The judge made no order regarding costs.