|
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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 |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] 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....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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 |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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 |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] 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....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] 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....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
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. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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 |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
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 |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
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. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
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. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter