What are the ramifications of this??

korec · 16-01-2012 02:02PM #1

Just a quick one here. I was talking to my friend yesterday who told me the following. He's a contractor by profession and unfortunately in the last while his premises has been raided numerous times by thieves looking primarily for Diesel. He has a few large tanks in his yard. Despite his best efforts at securing them he still remains a target. I guess his location doesn't help as its quite isolated. Anyway yesterday he told me he filled one of the tanks which he is not going to use no more, with 70 litres of diesel and diluted it with a large amount of caustic soda. At this stage he's quite pissed off I guess and just wants revenge more than anything. Just wondering what the ramifications of this to him if something happened to the thieves. I'm thinking primarily if the diesel came into skin contact to a would be thief, it would cause huge damage. God help him/her if it was actually ingested. It would be like drinking pure acid!! Should I warn him this might not be the brightest idea or if the worst happened how would he stand from a legal point.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2012 02:18PM

I think your instincts are sound; this is not the brightest idea.

Your friend is creating a concealed danger on his property. In general property-owners have a duty to warn people on the property of concealed dangers. It may be a defence if the person on your property is not someone you know is there or could reasonably foresee being there, but that's no help here; your friend is creating the danger precisely because he does foresee that people will be there. The fact that they have no (legitimate) business there doesn't give him licence to create concealed dangers with a view to injuring them.

So, yes, galling as it may be, I'm afraid your friend is at risk if someone is injured by the caustic soda he has put in the diesel tank.

Cavehill Red · 16-01-2012 02:21PM

Would a sign saying "Warning: Diesel not contained inside" suffice?

Peregrinus · 16-01-2012 02:32PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Would a sign saying "Warning: Diesel not contained inside" suffice?

I wouldn't think so. The duty is to warn of hazards, and the hazard does not consist of the fact that the contents do not consist of (pure) diesel, but the fact that they do include caustic soda. So I think you'd want a sign that says "Warning: Caustic" or something of the kind.

And, it occurs to me, that aside from general principles of occupier's liability your friend might also be in breach of statutory duties. Aren't there regulations about the labelling of containers with hazardous chemicals in them? You'd need to check whether the regs require a hazchem label on something like a storage tank at a business premises, but they could well do.

cojomo2 · 16-01-2012 02:32PM

what about ' warning contains flammable/dangerous substances, do not interfere''...theives will most likely ignore, thinking it's a standard flammable substances warning. If they burn themselves the guy will be able to say that adequate warning was given and ignored. Would that work!?

Peregrinus · 16-01-2012 02:58PM

cojomo2 wrote: »

what about ' warning contains flammable/dangerous substances, do not interfere''...theives will most likely ignore, thinking it's a standard flammable substances warning. If they burn themselves the guy will be able to say that adequate warning was given and ignored. Would that work!?

Caustic soda isn't flammable; I think it would be arguable that the notice was deliberately intended to make people think that the container contained the expected diesel (and not the unexpected caustic soda). (And, in fact, the argument would be correct, wouldn't it?) A notice intended to mislead/distract like this is not going to be enough.

If your friend is asked "why didn't you label the container as containing caustic soda?", what answer is he going to give that isn't some variation on "I was trying to fool thieves so they would be injured by the caustic soda"?

The bottom line is this; what your friend is doing is basically booby-trapping his own property with a man-trap in order to injure intruders. He doesn't have a right to do this, and he will be liable to anyone injured by his man-trap.

(Plus, if I'm right in thinking the hazchem regulations apply, there's a statutory obligation to label a container with caustic soda in a very specific and unambiguous way.)

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 03:04PM

Tell your friend to put the correct warning signs on ALL of his tanks.
A thief isn't going to pay attention to any warning labels if they have stolen from the tank before and found diesel in there.
Aside from that if it's dark they mightn't even see it.

Victor · 16-01-2012 03:47PM

Wouldn't fitting some sort of alarm be more useful?

korec wrote: »

It would be like drinking pure acid!!

But, but but - its a base!

And why would they be drinking it?

What is the chemical effect of mixing the two?

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 03:48PM

I think your friend could find himself in serious trouble with the HSA and facing a serious liability in case of injuries sustained as well as hefty criminal charges. It's a fairly retarded idea with absolutely no legal defense that I can see. I'm sure there's a much less dangerous substance that could be mixed with the diesel to make it useless. I'd also suspect there are better security provisions he could take without resorting to this.

korec · 16-01-2012 04:11PM

Victor wrote: »

Wouldn't fitting some sort of alarm be more useful?But, but but - its a base!

And why would they be drinking it?

Apologies I'm not terribly au fait with my chemical formulas. All I know is it would burn like hell if it came into contact with human skin

It is a common technique when transferring diesel from one tank to another that you "blow" through the transfer tubing to start the siphoning process. If your not very skilled at it, it often involves getting a mouthful of diesel in your mouth. Or in this case a mouthful of caustic soda. For which if were to happen I would hazard it would result in a pretty awful death.

As I've said before his place is pretty isolated. He has tried other security provisions but they've never been too successful. I would agree that I believe this is a stupid way. I will try to convince him otherwise. However I know he's pretty insistent on it, as he has been a target for fuel theft on more occasions now than is the norm

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 04:16PM

korec wrote: »

Apologies I'm not terribly au fait with my chemical formulas. All I know is it would burn like hell if it came into contact with human skin

It is a common technique when transferring diesel from one tank to another that you "blow" through the transfer tubing to start the siphoning process. If your not very skilled at it, it often involves getting a mouthful of diesel in your mouth. Or in this case a mouthful of caustic soda. For which if were to happen I would hazard it would result in a pretty awful death.

As I've said before his place is pretty isolated. He has tried other security provisions but they've never been too successful. I would agree that I believe this is a stupid way. I will try to convince him otherwise. However I know he's pretty insistent on it, as he has been a target for fuel theft on more occasions now than is the norm

I would just like to reiterate that this is by far one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. I would expect your friend to be facing a life sentence within the year. And I'm not exagerating here. If a person tries to siphon diesel and gets a mouthful of cuastic soda they will be dead and he will have murdered them. There's no question about it. I'm not sure what level of culpability your pre-existing knowledge gives you in relation to charges but if he refuses to back down you should consider going to the Gardaí.

C Eng · 16-01-2012 04:17PM

Can he not just use a few bags of sugar instead of the caustic soda. It won't poison anyone and should still screw up the engines of the "theives" customers.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 04:48PM

What about tooth decay on the thieves eh??

On a serious note..............Say if he had three tanks with diesel. Could he put a sign up saying/warning would be thieves that at least one of the tanks has a diesel/caustic soda mix and that by interfearing with the tank they are putting themselves at great risk and he will bare no responsibilty for any injury caused?? Similar to trespasser signs............

JustAddWater · 16-01-2012 04:52PM

Personally I would stay away from doing something that would cause harm like that?

Maybe replace the "diesel" with water or something that would maybe ruin the engine of anyone who uses it but not physically harm anyone

Best bet though in all honesty is to get a big feck off gaurd dog. The sight of him growling at ya and they'll run a mile

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 04:52PM

frag420 wrote: »

What about tooth decay on the thieves eh??

On a serious note..............Say if he had three tanks with diesel. Could he put a sign up saying/warning would be thieves that at least one of the tanks has a diesel/caustic soda mix and that by interfearing with the tank they are putting themselves at great risk and he will bare no responsibilty for any injury caused?? Similar to trespasser signs............

No. His intention is still to kill the person who steals from him.

FreudianSlippers · 16-01-2012 04:55PM

I could see a pretty epic Rylands v Fletcher case coming out of this if anything happened to the tanks!

frag420 · 16-01-2012 04:56PM

MagicSean wrote: »

No. His intention is still to kill the person who steals from him.

I would view it that by putting up the sign his intention is to prevent the thieving of his diesel. If the thief wants to take the risk then thats up to them.

But hey, I aint no law man. (said in a thick southern hick accent for effect)

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 05:05PM

MagicSean wrote: »

No. His intention is still to kill the person who steals from him.

Ah hang on a second. Where are you getting this from? He might just want to do damage to the engine they use the diesel in. You're making a very big assumption that he wants to kill the thief.

twowheelsonly · 16-01-2012 05:08PM

Once the tank is labelled with a Caustic Soda sign then I can't see what the problem is.
He's entitled to store Caustic Soda once it's properly marked and stored (Which it is IMO)
If for instance I had a 5 gallon drum of Caustic in my shed/garage, properly marked, and somebody stole it and harmed themselves, would I be liable?? Should I keep all my tools in tip-top condition as well just in case somebody robs them and injures themselves with them?
The only advice that I would give to him is not to mix it with the diesel.. Or buy a dog!!

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 05:34PM

frag420 wrote: »

I would view it that by putting up the sign his intention is to prevent the thieving of his diesel. If the thief wants to take the risk then thats up to them.

But hey, I aint no law man. (said in a thick southern hick accent for effect)

How could his intention have been to prevent the theft of the diesel? The diesel has been ruined already. His intention is to send a message. That's clear by his actions in mixing it with the diesel.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Ah hang on a second. Where are you getting this from? He might just want to do damage to the engine they use the diesel in. You're making a very big assumption that he wants to kill the thief.

It's not really an assumption. Adding caustic soda to the mix can only result in chemical burns to a person he expects to come into contact with it. He knows this. He also knows it is likely to happen and actually expects it to happen. His intent is clear.

And if he simply wanted to spoil the diesel then there are much less dangerous methods.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Once the tank is labelled with a Caustic Soda sign then I can't see what the problem is.
He's entitled to store Caustic Soda once it's properly marked and stored (Which it is IMO)
If for instance I had a 5 gallon drum of Caustic in my shed/garage, properly marked, and somebody stole it and harmed themselves, would I be liable?? Should I keep all my tools in tip-top condition as well just in case somebody robs them and injures themselves with them?
The only advice that I would give to him is not to mix it with the diesel.. Or buy a dog!!

You're comparisons are flawed. If you decided to hook your tools up to your mains so that a thief would be electrocuted because you were having frequent tool thefts then this would be a similar situation.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 05:39PM

Because the other two tanks have diesel in them as I said in my post. If the thieves think that one of the three has caustic soda in the tank then they are less likely to open any of them for fear of harm to them or there vehicles. BY having a warning in place he is I would like to think absolving himself of any blame as adequate warning was given to the thieves and should they decide to continue then that is there problem.

If he had a sign saying "Caution Guard Dog on Duty" and the thieves entered his property regardless and got bitten who would be at fault considering adequate warning was provided??

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 05:42PM

MagicSean wrote: »

It's not really an assumption. Adding caustic soda to the mix can only result in chemical burns to a person he expects to come into contact with it. He knows this. He also knows it is likely to happen and actually expects it to happen. His intent is clear.

And if he simply wanted to spoil the diesel then there are much less dangerous methods.

Well it is, because he himself has expressed no intention himself to injure the thieves. The OP is not the guy that did this and the OP is posting in a what if scenario, and he has not said that his friend has said anything about injuring the thief. Maybe he doesn't know that, and maybe he doesn't expect it. His intent is very unclear in fact.
Maybe caustic soda is the only thing he had to hand? Maybe it's the only thing he had no other use for?
As long as he puts up the proper warnings he is well within his rights.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 05:42PM

frag420 wrote: »

Because the other two tanks have diesel in them as I said in my post. If the thieves think that one of the three has caustic soda in the tank then they are less likely to open any of them for fear of harm to them or there vehicles. BY having a warning in place he is I would like to think absolving himself of any blame as adequate warning was given to the thieves and should they decide to continue then that is there problem.

If he had a sign saying "Caution Guard Dog on Duty" and the thieves entered his property regardless and got bitten who would be at fault considering adequate warning was provided??

You are missing the point. He has mixed caustic soda with the diesel in a deliberate attempt to injure. If he wanted it to work as you said he could simply spoil one of the tanks with a non-dangerous chemical.

Edit: and on the topic of guard dogs. There is a difference between having a dog on your premises and having a dog trained to rip out someones throat.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 05:44PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Well it is, because he himself has expressed no intention himself to injure the thieves. The OP is not the guy that did this and the OP is posting in a what if scenario, and he has not said that his friend has said anything about injuring the thief. Maybe he doesn't know that, and maybe he doesn't expect it. His intent is very unclear in fact.
Maybe caustic soda is the only thing he had to hand? Maybe it's the only thing he had no other use for?
As long as he puts up the proper warnings he is well within his rights.

He doesn't have to say it. His intent can be inferred from his actions. There is no reasonable excuse that can be given for mixing a dangerous chemical with diesel other than to injure someone who steals it.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 05:50PM

I understand what your saying but if he has adequate warnings up warning any would be thief that their lives are at risk by robbing his diesel then the thieves know the risk and should they decide to continue with their scumbaggery then that is because they failed to head the warning provided.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 05:52PM

frag420 wrote: »

I understand what your saying but if he has adequate warnings up warning any would be thief that their lives are at risk by robbing his diesel then the thieves know the risk and should they decide to continue with their scumbaggery then that is because they failed to head the warning provided.

"Dont enter my property or I'll shoot you"

Do you think that sign would give you licence to shoot someone on your property?

DarkJager · 16-01-2012 05:52PM

Persona non grata illegally trespassing with an intent to illegally acquire something that doesn't belong to him. I fail to see why anybody would side with an intruder getting chemical burns or killed by it. He could avoid serious injury/death by not being a scumbag in the first place and trying to steal what isn't his.

I'm not a legal type at all but if you could explain the reasoning as to why he would be accountable? It's like someone stealing a car that has brake problems. Should there be a big sign on the car warning about that?

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 06:00PM

DarkJager wrote: »

Persona non grata illegally trespassing with an intent to illegally acquire something that doesn't belong to him. I fail to see why anybody would side with an intruder getting chemical burns or killed by it. He could avoid serious injury/death by not being a scumbag in the first place and trying to steal what isn't his.

I'm not a legal type at all but if you could explain the reasoning as to why he would be accountable? It's like someone stealing a car that has brake problems. Should there be a big sign on the car warning about that?

If you knew someone was going to steal your car so you deliberately cut the brakes and this resulted in them running over a child do you think you should be beyond prosecution? Are you qualified or authorised to dispense justice by ensuring the thief was in a car crash as punishment for stealing your car?

Victor · 16-01-2012 06:03PM

What happens if one of his staff / family / the guy he sells the yard to gets burned / poisoned instead.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 06:07PM

MagicSean wrote: »

He doesn't have to say it. His intent can be inferred from his actions. There is no reasonable excuse that can be given for mixing a dangerous chemical with diesel other than to injure someone who steals it.

I just gave two reasonable excuses for spoiling diesel with caustic soda instead of something else like flour etc.

On the topic of the car with cut brakes, the owner of the car should only be prosecuted if it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he deliberately cut the brakes to cause the injury or death of the thief or another person - which you would find very hard to prove if he was simply performing maintenance on the car.

DarkJager · 16-01-2012 06:09PM

MagicSean wrote: »

If you knew someone was going to steal your car so you deliberately cut the brakes and this resulted in them running over a child do you think you should be beyond prosecution? Are you qualified or authorised to dispense justice by ensuring the thief was in a car crash as punishment for stealing your car?

Absolutely, it would be my property which nobody else should be touching. The fact they are illegally trying to take the car which belongs me should give me right to put whatever preventative measures I like in it...seeing as I own it and they don't. If they crash in to a wall because of it, that's tough luck and a lesson in societal behaviour learned too late.

What are the ramifications of this??

Comments