Heather declared:

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

You are correct !
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason
(including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this
into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common
duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states
where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take
reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe.
The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to
gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of
reasonableness.
The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under
_Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ :
.....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a
duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as
reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not
suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]...
And further :
.....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the
case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[
]...

I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it...
http://tinyurl.com/34r95

Jon
(22 years in Local Government)
--
Never argue with an idiot.....
They drag you down to their level, then beat
you with experience
http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php