What if someone falls on my private property?

Sniipe

I've recently put down some concrete that looks like paving around my house and on the drive way. The kind seen in Galway between eyre square and debenhams/roches stores.

Anyway, the guy who put it down put in extra grit to make it more stable underfoot. The drive way is at an angle because the house is higher than the footpath. The problem is that I don't think its safe enough yet. On wet days or on icy days like we are getting now I think someone can slip on it and hurt themselves ... ie postman, delivery boy...

The paving can't be done straight away and I'm wondering what COULD happen me if someone slipped on it?

Its not like its a death trap at the moment, its just that there is a possibility that it could happen. I've a sign up at the corner entrance for now.

auerillo

Sniipe wrote: »

I've recently put down some concrete that looks like paving around my house and on the drive way. The kind seen in Galway between eyre square and debenhams/roches stores.

Anyway, the guy who put it down put in extra grit to make it more stable underfoot. The drive way is at an angle because the house is higher than the footpath. The problem is that I don't think its safe enough yet. On wet days or on icy days like we are getting now I think someone can slip on it and hurt themselves ... ie postman, delivery boy...

The paving can't be done straight away and I'm wondering what COULD happen me if someone slipped on it?

Its not like its a death trap at the moment, its just that there is a possibility that it could happen. I've a sign up at the corner entrance for now.

What does your sign say?

If it draws attention to the fact that the area is dangerous, and someone does slip and suffers damage, your sign would appear to be an admission that you know the area is dangerous, and rather than prevent people from using an area you know to be dangerous, you continued to let people use it, the fact which might be used as evidence in any court case.

Surely the solution is to fix it so its not dangerous?

Hogzy

Well, its your property so your not exactly "letting" people use it however you do owe a duty of car to people who may enter your property like you said postman, xmas carolers (this time of year) etc etc. OP you have erected a sign saying slippery surface or whatever. IMO you have absolved yourself from responsibility. Its like putting a sign up that says park at your own risk in a car park.

Once the sign is up and clearly visible to all who may enter and it shows that there maybe a slippery surface i think you will be free from liability if such an incident were to occur. Make sure it is CLEARLY visible though

auerillo

Hogzy wrote: »

Well, its your property so your not exactly "letting" people use it however you do owe a duty of car to people who may enter your property like you said postman, xmas carolers (this time of year) etc etc. OP you have erected a sign saying slippery surface or whatever. IMO you have absolved yourself from responsibility. Its like putting a sign up that says park at your own risk in a car park.

Once the sign is up and clearly visible to all who may enter and it shows that there maybe a slippery surface i think you will be free from liability if such an incident were to occur. Make sure it is CLEARLY visible though

That's news to me. Where does it say in law that erecting a sign absolves one from responsibility?

No amount of putting up signs can absolve anyone from responsibility of from opting out of ones legal and constitutional rights and/or obligations. Indeed, in this case the sign merely seeks to acknowledge that the owner is aware there is a problem, and which, ironically, might be used as evidence against him by anyone seeking damages that he knew there was a problem and did nothing to put it right.

Hogzy

auerillo wrote: »

That's news to me. Where does it say in law that erecting a sign absolves one from responsibility?

No amount of putting up signs can absolve anyone from responsibility of from opting out of ones legal and constitutional rights and/or obligations. Indeed, in this case the sign merely seeks to acknowledge that the owner is aware there is a problem, and which, ironically, might be used as evidence against him by anyone seeking damages that he knew there was a problem and did nothing to put it right.

Clearly the OP is concerned about others as he has put down concrete that is more stable to a person walking over it. So clearly he does not intend anyone falling on it in the distant future. Currently as he has stated it is not safe to walk over the paving.

Under Section 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier (The OP) is required to "take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances...to ensure that a visitor to the premises does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger existing thereon".

If the OP has taken reasonable steps to ensure that any entrants on his property have prior knolegdge that there is an inherent danger upon entering his/her property then he will be absolved of responsibility. Erecting a clear visible sign would in my opinion be considered to be reasonable given the circumstances. If a person enters the OP's property after reading and understanding the sign then they are guilty of contributory negligence to their own injuries. (See McNamara v ESB IR1 1975)

auerillo what do you think would be the reasonable steps the OP could take?

auerillo

Hogzy wrote: »

Clearly the OP is concerned about others as he has put down concrete that is more stable to a person walking over it. So clearly he does not intend anyone falling on it in the distant future. Currently as he has stated it is not safe to walk over the paving.

Under Section 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier (The OP) is required to "take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances...to ensure that a visitor to the premises does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger existing thereon".

If the OP has taken reasonable steps to ensure that any entrants on his property have prior knolegdge that there is an inherent danger upon entering his/her property then he will be absolved of responsibility. Erecting a clear visible sign would in my opinion be considered to be reasonable given the circumstances. If a person enters the OP's property after reading and understanding the sign then they are guilty of contributory negligence to their own injuries. (See McNamara v ESB IR1 1975)

auerillo what do you think would be the reasonable steps the OP could take?

What position might a court take if a person suffers damages and did not see the sign? Or if they are illiterate? Or if they are foreign and can't understand the language used in the sign?

If there is a problem then it seems obvious that the solution is to fix the problem, rather than erecting a sign to say there is a problem, and leave it unfixed!

Hogzy

auerillo wrote: »

What position might a court take if a person suffers damages and did not see the sign? Or if they are illiterate? Or if they are foreign and can't understand the language used in the sign?

If there is a problem then it seems obvious that the solution is to fix the problem, rather than erecting a sign to say there is a problem, and leave it unfixed!

Firstly the it is only a temporary problem. OP has made the pathway (we'll call it a pathway for arguments sake) better by making it more grippy, however due to the works he has undertaken it is taking time to set properly. Its as if there was a spillage in a shop that has just been moped up, the ground is still wet and slippery but the shop will always have erected a Wet floor sign with a picture that is recognisable internationally. Im sure your familiar with it its of a person slipping See link. Shops can in most circumstances absolve themselves from responsibility if they have such a sign up.

I told the OP to make the sign as visible as possible... IE at the immediate entrance to his house. Surely the remoteness of coming across someone who is illiterate is too remote. I think the literacy rate in Ireland is 99% or something so a court would consider the op owing a duty to illiterate people too remote.. A child however is not capable of commiting contributory negligence but If a child were to enter then it could be argued that the child was not under the correct parental supervision as they should have been.

Again shops seem to get along ok with putting a sign down for a wet floor and there are people walking all over it. Erecting a sign simply tells a visitor to take care while walking as there is a hazard. If the visitor falls and takes a tort action against the OP, then the OP can be seen to be taking positive action to reduce the risk, as much as is reasonable of him, to prevent any visitors from hurting themselves by erecting such a sign.

EDIT: If a sign was erected in English this would be sufficient for the courts. It is too onerous on the plaintiff to publish a sign in ALL languages of the world. If Ireland was say a 50:50 English:Spanish speaking country then obviously things would be different!

EDIT: I am also assuming that the problem is a temporary one, IE the OP is waiting for the pathway to set properly and when this occurs the pathway will be safe. If this is not the case and it is a permanent issue then i agree with auerillo to an extent, that a sign is not sufficient