wrote in message
...
In article , Bigjon
writes
Mike declared:


Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user
of the right of way using it as such?


Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full
length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts,
leaning in
at the top with barbed wire on.

Quite INCORRECT.
"...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures
a
passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].."
This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E.
2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great
regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb).

But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor


Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure
that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which
he (the occupier) was aware.

The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of
nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be
prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured
trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some
indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however
I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not
domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was
seriously injured) could not read.......

Heather

--


Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save
yourself the trouble, reply to the Group.