Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

CRASHING INTO THE POSTMAN

  • 30-11-2010 4:54pm
    #1
    HardimanJ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 ✭


    Legal scenario:

    The lane way leading up to Mr Smith's house has a blind bend. Yesterday he was unfortunate enough to meet Mr Postman coming around the bend, in the opposite direction, to deliver Mr Smith's mail - and there was a collision. The Gardai were called and stated that Mr Smith was at fault, though Mr Smith disputes that: it's a blind bend and he maintains that with regard to the accident both himself and the postman are equally at fault. The lane, it should be pointed out, is Mr Smith's private property.

    Questions:
    1. Can liability attach to Mr Smith in respect of the accident given that it happened on his private property?
    2. Does the fact that the postman was on Mr Smith's private property, with Mr Smith's implicit permission, in order to deliver his mail, make any difference?

    Any suggestions would be much appreciated.


Comments

  • #2
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,703 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    HardimanJ wrote: »
    Legal scenario:
    Questions:
    1. Can liability attach to Mr Smith in respect of the accident given that it happened on his private property?

    Yes, he doesn't have absolute immunity from committing a civil wrong on his own property. For example if a guest at a barbeque got burnt as a result of negligence on the part of the householder, that would involve liability on the part of the owner, this is in the same legal ball park.

    2. Does the fact that the postman was on Mr Smith's private property, with Mr Smith's implicit permission, in order to deliver his mail, make any difference?

    No, there is an implicit invitation to enter the property to render a service. Effectively this makes the postman a guest on private property and the owner has a duty of care.

    The relevant road traffic legislation says that a person must drive at a speed which will enable them to stop in the distance they can see clear ahead of them. What this means is that if you drive around a bend and come upon a stationary object (cow/child/parked car) and hit it, it's your fault. Thus if the postman had seen the householder and had come to a stop before the collision, that would mean the householder is at fault. Who actually owns the property is irrelevant as long as the postman was not a trespasser.

    While the Gardai couldn't prosecute given that it is not a 'public place' within the meaning of the RTA 1961, the courts would be likely to uphold this principle in deciding liability, otherwise owners of private property would have a licence to drive like lunatics on their own property regardless of the danger to innocent people who happened to be on the property for a legitimate purpose.


  • #3
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    HardimanJ wrote: »
    Questions:
    1. Can liability attach to Mr Smith in respect of the accident given that it happened on his private property?

    Yes.
    HardimanJ wrote: »
    2. Does the fact that the postman was on Mr Smith's private property, with Mr Smith's implicit permission, in order to deliver his mail, make any difference?

    Perhaps in respect of civil law. Yes in respect of criminal law.

    The question of criminal liability falls to be answered by whether Mr. Smith was driving dangerously or without reasonable consideration for other road users, having regard to traffic on the road or traffic which could reasonably be expected to be thereon. Those offences can only be committed in a public place, which under the Act is defined as a any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge. A postman is not a member of the public in circumstances where he is part of a limited class of persons who have implied permission to enter the property to deliver mail, but may not have (subject to the nature of the place) permission to do so in a vehicle.

    In the absence of evidence of objectively excess speed here or obviously reckless behaviour , the position is in any event likely that no criminal offence was committed.

    Civil liability comes to be determined by whether Mr. Smith drove negligently, having regard to what a reasonable road user (presumed to be reasonably cautious) would do. Being able to stop in a distance you can see clearly is probably the most important issue here, blind spot or not.

    It may be that Mr. Postman was negligent as well subject to the speed of his approach and his view from his side of the corner. The fact that he was, if he was, does not mean that Mr. Smith was not, and vice versa, i.e. liability may well be shared and often is in a situation like this.

    Mr. Smith needs to go to a solicitor.


Advertisement