Dog protect from junk mail?

berrypendel

In relation to this could one put a notice over letterbox to say dog inside or similar.

The judge said he had no legal right to put his hand through letterbox.Is that true of the people who deliver all unwanted mail even genuine charities

seamus

It's perfectly legal to post mail through a letterbox, but there is no need to put your hand through the letter box to do so.

That's really all he's saying. There is a strict liability on dog owners where the dog bites someone (even if they're on your property), however in the case above the judge was not satisified that the man had been bitten and instead he believed that the man hurt himself when he jerked his hand back out of the letterbox in fear.

A sticker saying "Dog inside" on your letterbox would only really serve to prevent some people from delivering stuff out of fear.

berrypendel

seamus wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to post mail through a letterbox, but there is no need to put your hand through the letter box to do so.

That's really all he's saying. There is a strict liability on dog owners where the dog bites someone (even if they're on your property), however in the case above the judge was not satisified that the man had been bitten and instead he believed that the man hurt himself when he jerked his hand back out of the letterbox in fear.

A sticker saying "Dog inside" on your letterbox would only really serve to prevent some people from delivering stuff out of fear.

that is what i want i do not have a dog but wondered if it would stop junk mailers

BrianD

Interesting that this was lost. I can understand that there is a technicality on his employment status.

However, many houses in Portobello where the incident took places have front doors that open directly onto the street. The letterbox is a publicly accessible part of a home - it's a place that I would naturally put things into and that can be anybody. As it most homes in Portobello it would be directly accessible to anyone to stick their hand in - let's say a minor or a person of limited capability. Surely if you have an animal inside the door that bites then there would be a duty of care to prevent it biting somebody who is using the letterbox?

However, I get the impression that the judge just didn't believe the pizza guy.

Procrastastudy

Lets flex my puny legal muscles :P

I'd argue that under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 the person delivering junk mail is technically a trespasser. I acknowledge that this is pushing it as only the "hand" is the trespasser.

Someone carrying out work without invitation may be regarded as a trespasser see;

Williams v TP Wallace Construction Ltd (2002) 2 ILRM 63

Under the Act the only duty owed is not to act "with reckless disregard". I would submit that a Dog barking at a trespasser is not reckless disregard neither is getting an injury while jamming your hand out of a letter box.

castie

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Lets flex my puny legal muscles :P

I'd argue that under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 the person delivering junk mail is technically a trespasser. I acknowledge that this is pushing it as only the "hand" is the trespasser.

Someone carrying out work without invitation may be regarded as a trespasser see;

Williams v TP Wallace Construction Ltd (2002) 2 ILRM 63

Under the Act the only duty owed is not to act "with reckless disregard". I would submit that a Dog barking at a trespasser is not reckless disregard neither is getting an injury while jamming your hand out of a letter box.

This is assuming the injury was from pulling their hand out.
What if it was a bite?

subrosa

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Lets flex my puny legal muscles :P

I'd argue that under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 the person delivering junk mail is technically a trespasser. I acknowledge that this is pushing it as only the "hand" is the trespasser.

Someone carrying out work without invitation may be regarded as a trespasser see;

Williams v TP Wallace Construction Ltd (2002) 2 ILRM 63

Under the Act the only duty owed is not to act "with reckless disregard". I would submit that a Dog barking at a trespasser is not reckless disregard neither is getting an injury while jamming your hand out of a letter box.

I think there is an implied invitation to postmen and, by extension I suppose, other users of the letter box. This would apply unless that implied invitation was explicitly withdrawn. For example a postman will often have to cross your property to post the letter. The extent of the invitation is debatable. Whether it extends to putting a hand into the letterbox would depend on the facts of the case (the design of the letterbox etc.)

It would be interesting to see if the status of the entrant would be altered by a 'no junk mail' sign.

berrypendel

subrosa wrote: »

I think there is an implied invitation to postmen and, by extension I suppose, other users of the letter box. This would apply unless that implied invitation was explicitly withdrawn. For example a postman will often have to cross your property to post the letter. The extent of the invitation is debatable. Whether it extends to putting a hand into the letterbox would depend on the facts of the case (the design of the letterbox etc.)

It would be interesting to see if the status of the entrant would be altered by a 'no junk mail' sign.

By that do you mean if the no junk mail sign was on the gate or by entrant entrant toletterbox?

Bit ot but if a national charity persists in dropping their donation letters through the box despite being told not to what, if anything, can be done.? Can they argue it is different people on the [local] ground who bactually drop it and is outside their control?

Procrastastudy

Interesting point about the implied invitation - I'd argue that applies to An Post and solicited circulars only.

A No Junk mail or, better both this and a Warning Dog! Sign would imho go along way to getting any damages awarded against you reduced because of fair warning and possible contributory negligence.

If it was a bite and not an injury from the post box - I don't think the Occupiers Liability Act would apply. I think there would be some kind of Dogs Act which would deal with this or perhaps negligence simplicity.

If it was negligence simplicity then the plaintiff would probably have a harder time proving his case than an OLA type scenario.

Disclaimer: 1 in any Tort action there is a lot of scope for it to go either way depending on numerous factors.
2 I know just short of sod all. I'm just having a play with the facts.