J A Mitchell & Sons

Private and voluntary organisations · Company

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Jan 2023•Latest report 20 Jan 2023

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from J A Mitchell & Sons linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Michael John Holmes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Michael John Holmes died after being knocked down and trampled by cattle while walking dogs with his wife on a public footpath through a field. The report raised concerns about the risks of walkers, particularly those accompanied by dogs, coming into contact with cattle and calves, and about the management and separation of public footpaths from grazing cattle.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of expertise to assess and control cattle trampling risks on small farms

    Wider context from the report

    “4.1. The current potential for a hazard to be created by walkers on public footpaths moving in proximity to a farmer’s grazing cattle, requires management of these competing interests. It was contended at the inquest that the farmer is subject to a statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was contended that a landowner must conduct his business around the existing public footpath, irrespective of which came into existence first. Whilst not disputing the legal duty imposed on a farmer in these circumstances, the potential mischief left unguarded in that analysis, is that Small & Medium Enterprises (SME’s) such as small family farms may lack the expertise to recognise the problem, carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to cattle trampling risks and devise reasonably practicable control measures. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unclear requirements for bringing dogs onto public footpaths near cattle

    Wider context from the report

    “2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs. 2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young. 2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a ‘usual accompaniment’ and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unpredictable aggressive cattle reactions to dogs in fields

    Wider context from the report

    “3.1. It is difficult to predict whether a particular cow will react aggressively to the presence of a dog in a field. It was suggested during the inquest, the risk of such a reaction is highest in the months after the birth of a calf. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient oversight and management of public rights of way near grazing cattle

    Wider context from the report

    “4.2. To avoid the harm envisaged by further deaths in comparable circumstances, the HSE and Local Authorities should explore ways to apply their expertise in collaboration with landowners (of the type involved in this inquest), whether on a paid or voluntary basis. The maintenance of safe public rights of way could be said to require oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Cattle trampling hazard when walkers with dogs encounter cows with calves

    Wider context from the report

    “2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs. 2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young. 2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a ‘usual accompaniment’ and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to J A Mitchell & Sons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to separate walkers from cattle on rights of way

    Wider context from the report

    “1.2. Statistics from the Health & Safety Executive (‘HSE’) indicate that on average 6 people have died each year from injuries sustained in cattle trampling incidents. 11 people died in 2020, one of whom was Mr Holmes. Such incidents are avoidable if walkers and cattle are separated. In my judgment, this unacceptable situation necessitates a review of the arrangements in which walkers are brought into contact with cows and their calves, by virtue of rights of way. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026