What are the ramifications of this??

korec · 16-01-2012 1:02pm #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 1:18pm

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 1:21pm

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

Peregrinus · 16-01-2012 1:32pm

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 1:32pm

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 1:58pm

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 2:04pm

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 2:47pm

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 2:48pm

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 3:11pm

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 3:16pm

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 3:17pm

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 3:48pm

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 3:52pm

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 3:52pm

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 3:55pm

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

frag420 · 16-01-2012 3:56pm

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 4:05pm

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 4:08pm

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 4:34pm

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 4:39pm

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 4:42pm

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 4:42pm

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 4:44pm

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 4:50pm

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 4:52pm

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 4:52pm

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 5:00pm

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 5:03pm

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

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 5:07pm

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 5:09pm

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.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 5:09pm

Victor wrote: »

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

If the appropriate warnings are in place nothing should happen and this should not come about in the first place. It's not as if the warning is going to say "this warning applies to trespassers only"

korec · 16-01-2012 5:26pm

Just for clarity when I spoke to him yesterday he was thinking of diluting it with caustic soda, he had not actually done it as of yet, as I might of inferred in my original post. Apologies for my poor wording. I don't know what his intentions are, maybe it was an off the cuff remark and he has no intentions of mixing the chemical agent with diesel. I didn't really think about it much at the time when he said it. I would guess though he's pretty frustrated by the the amount of times he's being targeted this year, I think he said he had in the region of two thousand euros worth of diesel stolen on him in the last year with no retribution for it or help by the justice system. I also know he would use caustic soda as its a chemical agent he requires on some of his day to day works so yes he would have it in stock in his yard. I will relay to him the possible implications when I speak to him next and I'm sure he will refrain from using such a harmful mixed substance.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 5:51pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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.

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned"

DarkJager wrote: »

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 car maintenance involves simply disabling the brakes? How is disabling the brakes a preventative measure? Removing the battery would be a preventative measure because the car could not be started. If you cut the brakes you are relying on the driver getting into difficulty.

korec wrote: »

Just for clarity when I spoke to him yesterday he was thinking of diluting it with caustic soda, he had not actually done it as of yet, as I might of inferred in my original post. Apologies for my poor wording. I don't know what his intentions are, maybe it was an off the cuff remark and he has no intentions of mixing the chemical agent with diesel. I didn't really think about it much at the time when he said it. I would guess though he's pretty frustrated by the the amount of times he's being targeted this year, I think he said he had in the region of two thousand euros worth of diesel stolen on him in the last year with no retribution for it or help by the justice system. I also know he would use caustic soda as its a chemical agent he requires on some of his day to day works so yes he would have it in stock in his yard. I will relay to him the possible implications when I speak to him next and I'm sure he will refrain from using such a harmful mixed substance.

Tell him to contact the local crime prevention officer or detective branch with regard to formulating a preventative strategy.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 6:10pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned"

In your opinion they're not.
He could simply answer "to spoil the diesel so thieves couldn't use it". There isn't a hint of intention to harm in that answer.
Besides this, if he put up the required warnings that the tank contained extremely caustic materials, I doubt his intention would even come into it. If I want to put caustic mixtures into one of my oil tanks that's my business.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 6:16pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned".

Yes, IF they do. They have the option not to. At this point they have been warned of the dangers and now have the option to cease their scumbaggery or risk injury. If they ignore the warning and are willing to risk harm or their lives for some fuel then maybe the OPs friend is doing us all a favour and ridding society of these brainless scumbags!!

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 6:33pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

In your opinion they're not.
He could simply answer "to spoil the diesel so thieves couldn't use it". There isn't a hint of intention to harm in that answer.

I would liken that to saying "Judge I fired my shotgun at the crowd of people because I wanted to get rid of a fly that was bothering me". It's not a reasonable or proportional method of accomplishing your task.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Besides this, if he put up the required warnings that the tank contained extremely caustic materials, I doubt his intention would even come into it. If I want to put caustic mixtures into one of my oil tanks that's my business.

That might work if he was using it to store caustic soda. But the fact that he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intended for it to be mistaken as diesel.

frag420 wrote: »

Yes, IF they do. They have the option not to. At this point they have been warned of the dangers and now have the option to cease their scumbaggery or risk injury. If they ignore the warning and are willing to risk harm or their lives for some fuel then maybe the OPs friend is doing us all a favour and ridding society of these brainless scumbags!!

Ireland doesn't work like that. You can't put a bear trap inside your front door with the intention of cutting the leg off an intruder.

Hunter Mahan · 16-01-2012 6:34pm

They are his tanks and he can put what he likes in them, within reason. He's not making an explosive, there are no illegal substances in the tank so he is ok legally.

Next people will be saying if I cut the brakes in my own car, and someone steals it, I'm at fault, ridiculous..

If it's a business of some sort and people have a right to access at certain times then any hazardous warning sign would suffice.

He is not asking for the diesel mix to be stolen, he is not inviting anyone onto his private property, in fact he is most likely expressly denying unauthorized access.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 6:45pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Ireland doesn't work like that. You can't put a bear trap inside your front door with the intention of cutting the leg off an intruder.

I have to disagree here. If I put a bear trap inside my front door and a big sign on the front of the door saying there is a bear trap inside then by warning someone surely my
Intention is not to harm them but to dissuade them from entering. If they then decide to enter then they are accepting the risk of possible harm.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 6:48pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I would liken that to saying "Judge I fired my shotgun at the crowd of people because I wanted to get rid of a fly that was bothering me". It's not a reasonable or proportional method of accomplishing your task.

That might work if he was using it to store caustic soda. But the fact that he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intended for it to be mistaken as diesel.

Now your analogy is flawed. In your example one of the crowd of people would have to pull the trigger themselves. This guy is not throwing caustic diesel at the thieves, it is sitting in a tank. It is entirely reasonable and proportional, it simply ruins the diesel. It is a hazardous chemical but they should not be touching it in the first place - if there are warnings put up he is in the clear. The thieves do NOT have a right to presume the tank contains diesel and is going to be safe, especially so if there is a warning sign put up.

What if they came on the premises to steal a tank's worth of caustic liquid and injured themselves? If there is a warning on the tank saying "Caustic liquid" is it not reasonable to assume then (and only then) that the tank's contents are dangerous and should not be handled? It certainly is. So if they handle it, it is not the landowner's problem.
What you are basically saying is that if someone comes and steals a tub of caustic soda and burns themselves in the process I should be liable even though the tub is obviously going to be marked "caustic soda". I am allowed by law to own caustic soda. The tub is properly marked just as this man's tank would be. What is the problem?

Would you be defending them so vehemently then? What if they injured themselves climbing a barbed wire fence? It is obvious the fence is dangerous. Why should I be liable if they want to take the risk of climbing it (or stealing from a marked tank on the premises) so they can engage in criminal activity?

EDIT: OP, by the way, tell your friend to be careful doing this, apparently caustic soda produces a lot of heat when dissolving! Not good when there's fuel involved

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 6:57pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Now your analogy is flawed. In your example one of the crowd of people would have to pull the trigger themselves. This guy is not throwing caustic diesel at the thieves, it is sitting in a tank. It is entirely reasonable and proportional, it simply ruins the diesel. It is a hazardous chemical but they should not be touching it in the first place - if there are warnings put up he is in the clear. The thieves do NOT have a right to presume the tank contains diesel and is going to be safe, especially so if there is a warning sign put up.

What if they came on the premises to steal a tank's worth of caustic liquid and injured themselves? If there is a warning on the tank saying "Caustic liquid" is it not reasonable to assume then (and only then) that the tank's contents are dangerous and should not be handled? It certainly is. So if they handle it, it is not the landowner's problem.
What you are basically saying is that if someone comes and steals a tub of caustic soda and burns themselves in the process I should be liable even though the tub is obviously going to be marked "caustic soda". I am allowed by law to own caustic soda. The tub is properly marked just as this man's tank would be. What is the problem?

Would you be defending them so vehemently then? What if they injured themselves climbing a barbed wire fence? It is obvious the fence is dangerous. Why should I be liable if they want to take the risk of climbing it (or stealing from a marked tank on the premises) so they can engage in criminal activity?

You aren't hearing what I am saying. The fact he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intends it to be mistaken as diesel. If he wanted to just store caustic soda he would not put it in with diesel as it would destroy it. There is no other reason for putting caustic soda in a tank of diesel other than to have it mistaken as diesel and cause harm or damage. This is the crux of the matter. This is his intent which he would have a hard time disproving.

Let's just get something straight here. I'm not defending anyone here. Maybe you think vigilante justice is a good idea. Maybe you think that severe chemical burns are a proportionate punishment for stealing a bit of diesel. I disagree.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 7:10pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. The fact he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intends it to be mistaken as diesel. If he wanted to just store caustic soda he would not put it in with diesel as it would destroy it. There is no other reason for putting caustic soda in a tank of diesel other than to have it mistaken as diesel and cause harm or damage. This is the crux of the matter. This is his intent which he would have a hard time disproving.

Let's just get something straight here. I'm not defending anyone here. Maybe you think vigilante justice is a good idea. Maybe you think that severe chemical burns are a proportionate punishment for stealing a bit of diesel. I disagree.

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

I don't think vigilante justice is a good idea, or that such a punishment is at all proportionate. I believe I have the right to store any legal combination of chemicals and substances in any manner I see fit as long as it is in line with the relevant health and safety regulations, and if some idiot gombeen decides to ignore the warning signs and chance his arm, well, there's not much I can do about it.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 7:19pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

It doesn't change his intention.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

I don't think vigilante justice is a good idea, or that such a punishment is at all proportionate. I believe I have the right to store any legal combination of chemicals and substances in any manner I see fit as long as it is in line with the relevant health and safety regulations, and if some idiot gombeen decides to ignore the warning signs and chance his arm, well, there's not much I can do about it.

You can justify it to yourself all you want. The intent behind doing what the op has highlighted is clear. And at the end of the day, the intent is what is needed for a murder charge.

Mimikyu · 16-01-2012 7:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Victor · 16-01-2012 7:40pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

But surely you have to realise that some solicitor will take a "no foal no fee" court case against anyone doing this, costing them serious amounts of money to defend it against a penniless plaintiff.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 7:41pm

MagicSean wrote: »

It doesn't change his intention.

You can justify it to yourself all you want. The intent behind doing what the op has highlighted is clear. And at the end of the day, the intent is what is needed for a murder charge.

His intention wouldn't matter, because a murder charge would not be brought against him. Where there is a warning sign put up it would be death by misadventure - The thief knew he was going to ingest a dangerous chemical chose to do so anyway.
If you think someone would be brought up on a murder charge circumstances like this, why are alcohol distillers and brewers not brought forward for manslaughter when someone dies of alcohol poisoning?

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 7:49pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

His intention wouldn't matter, because a murder charge would not be brought against him. Where there is a warning sign put up it would be death by misadventure - The thief knew he was going to ingest a dangerous chemical chose to do so anyway.
If you think someone would be brought up on a murder charge circumstances like this, why are alcohol distillers and brewers not brought forward for manslaughter when someone dies of alcohol poisoning?

Because they don't have the intent?

For the purpose of a murder charge intent is pretty much all that matters.

Hunchback · 16-01-2012 7:51pm

I'm a novice at this (first year student), so it's probably appropriate to frame this as a question..
did the occupiers liability act 1995 not dispense with the duty of care of the occupier NOT to act with reckless disregard for the trespasser on to premises whose intention is to commit a criminal act? (leaving the only remaining duty of care not to intentionally damage his property?)

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 7:56pm

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

I'm a novice at this (first year student), so it's probably appropriate to frame this as a question..
did the occupiers liability act 1995 not dispense with the duty of care of the occupier NOT to act with reckless disregard for the entrant on to premises whose intention is to commit a criminal act? (leaving the only remaining duty of care not to intentionally damage his property?)

This isn't a duty of care issue. This is a deliberate action by the owner to mix diesel with caustic soda with the intention that it be mistaken as diesel and cause serious harm or death to someone. It's important to note that for the purpose of a murder charge the intention does not have to be directed at a specific person.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 8:00pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Because they don't have the intent?

For the purpose of a murder charge intent is pretty much all that matters.

Exactly why I said manslaughter and not murder.
What about actus reus? He would not have forced the diesel down his throat, the thief would do so voluntarily and in the course of a criminal act. Even if a charge was brought, I really doubt the court would find that someone should be held accountable for injuries sustained by another's actions in the course of their voluntary criminal act.
It is one thing if the guy starts swinging a bat at the thief. It is entirely another if the thief kills himself by accident.

EDIT: the above post, it's also important to note that mere intention is not enough.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 8:03pm

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Exactly why I said manslaughter and not murder.
What about actus reus? He would not have forced the diesel down his throat, the thief would do so voluntarily and in the course of a criminal act. Even if a charge was brought, I really doubt the court would find that someone should be held accountable for injuries sustained by another's actions in the course of their voluntary criminal act.
It is one thing if the guy starts swinging a bat at the thief. It is entirely another if the thief kills himself by accident.

EDIT: the above post, it's also important to note that mere intention is not enough.

Sorry, I didn't notice the manslaughter. Alcohol is not a lethal poison in the quantity it is sold in. If anyone, the publican would be the one that would be charged. Wasn't there actually a case on this recently?

In regards to the actus reus, the act is the mixing of the caustic soda with the diesel. No different than setting a lethal trap for someone.

What are the ramifications of this??

Comments