Causing injury to burglars.

nudger

This is in relation to defence of your property, I'm talking about broken glass or nail boards on top of a garage roof in a lane way etc.
Have there been cases where burglars have brought a case, in Ireland, against a property owner where he has injured himself but had obviously been breaking in.

I have never heard of one, only urban myths.

Victor

You can't set a trap for people, whether they are burglars or not - what if it was a Garda or paramedic that needed access?

Consider anti-climbing paint with appropriate signs, barbed wire or similar.

nudger

It used to be a lock on your front door, maybe a hedge or a barking dog, times have changed.
I have a lane way at the back of the house, the glass was put on by another, not me, no trap, long shards sticking out saying "keep away".
Please don't tell me Mr Scumbag has rights.

jblack

nudger wrote: »

It used to be a lock on your front door, maybe a hedge or a barking dog, times have changed.
I have a lane way at the back of the house, the glass was put on by another, not me, no trap, long shards sticking out saying "keep away".
Please don't tell me Mr Scumbag has rights.

I'm afraid if Mr. Burglar/rapist/kiddie snatcher was trying to jump over your back wall and shredded his hands on the glass you may be liable under the 1995 act which I have linked herewith.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/sec0004.html#sec4

Procrastastudy

This again!

Yes we're so much worse of here with our laws than, say the US. Maybe we should all carry a gun. Next time theres a knob in a BMW, on the phone - sitting 3" off my back bumper I should shoot him in the head. Perhaps we cut peoples arms off for throwing cig butts down on the street.

There was a case recently where a guy got 175K (iirc) for being run over twice by some guy fleeing from a burglary. I find it very difficult to sympathise with a burgler but there limits for a reason.

Pkiernan

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

This again!

Yes we're so much worse of here with our laws than, say the US. Maybe we should all carry a gun. Next time theres a knob in a BMW, on the phone - sitting 3" off my back bumper I should shoot him in the head. Perhaps we cut peoples arms off for throwing cig butts down on the street.

There was a case recently where a guy got 175K (iirc) for being run over twice by some guy fleeing from a burglary. I find it very difficult to sympathise with a burgler but there limits for a reason.

Your post is quite nonsensical.

By the way, I have 19 guns, and have yet to harm another person in my life.

nudger

jblack wrote: »

I'm afraid if Mr. Burglar/rapist/kiddie snatcher was trying to jump over your back wall and shredded his hands on the glass you may be liable under the 1995 act which I have linked herewith.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/sec0004.html#sec4

This is what I have "heard" but have never seen a case in the papers, tv, etc.
What would be the penalty? a claim on the house insurance?
If my garage was not insured in the policy would he then get nothing?

If a burglar gets bitten by your dog can he claim?
Cuts his hand while breaking your window?

Would like to hear of an actual case.
The guy who got the €175k got it from a road traffic accident after being run down by the house owner, different thing.

Milk & Honey

nudger wrote: »

This is what I have "heard" but have never seen a case in the papers, tv, etc.
What would be the penalty? a claim on the house insurance?
If my garage was not insured in the policy would he then get nothing?

If a burglar gets bitten by your dog can he claim?
Cuts his hand while breaking your window?

Would like to hear of an actual case.
The guy who got the €175k got it from a road traffic accident after being run down by the house owner, different thing.

There is no penalty. There would be a civil action against the landowner. If the landowner has insurance the insurer may indemnify him for all or part of the claim. the injured party can take the steps open to any judgement holder to execute his judgement.

There may be a successful claim if the dog bites the burglar depending on the circumstances.

In the case of McGowan V Dun laoghaire & ors there was a successful claim because there were no signs warning people that it is dangerous to dive head first into the sea without checking that there were no hazards in the water.
A recreational user and trespasser are owed the same standard of care in the legislation.

Procrastastudy

Pkiernan wrote: »

Your post is quite nonsensical.

By the way, I have 19 guns, and have yet to harm another person in my life.

Your slightly worrying use of the "yet" aside - gun ownership laws in this country are yet another example of why I'm alot happier living here than somewhere that would allow people to do stupid things in the name of "protection". People are stupid and alarmist by nature - I for one think reasonable force is the best balance.

Allowing people to turn housing estates into fortresses littered with broken glass, razor wire and traps further erodes any sense of community and looking out for each other - which is actually what keeps crime down in an area. As opposed to turning it into a slum.

My nonsensical ramblings aside - the entire contence of my house would be worth a fraction of what someone whould get with a claim on the OLA even if they were tresspassing. Now if that was a kid getting a ball or something they'd probably wind up owning the house - and rightly so.

@M&H any citation or year for that case by any chance please? (Sorry I did look but couldn't find it).

nudger

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is no penalty. There would be a civil action against the landowner. If the landowner has insurance the insurer may indemnify him for all or part of the claim. the injured party can take the steps open to any judgement holder to execute his judgement.

There may be a successful claim if the dog bites the burglar depending on the circumstances.

In the case of McGowan V Dun laoghaire & ors there was a successful claim because there were no signs warning people that it is dangerous to dive head first into the sea without checking that there were no hazards in the water.
A recreational user and trespasser are owed the same standard of care in the legislation.

You mentioned that there may be a claim against the dog, would a "Beware Dog" sign get you out of that one.

Would a "Beware glass/glass can cut fingers" sign do the same.

Where do we stop, "beware alarm makes noise/PPE/ear muff must be worn while breaking in"

Back on topic, any criminal cases to show how Judges deal with these things.

Solair

Glass or sharp objects on walls deliberately designed to hurt will generally end up maiming a kid climbing on a wall, or a pet dog/cat or wildlife like foxes rather than intruders.

You can make something unclimbable / inaccessible without making it dangerous !

I grew up in an area of Dublin built in the 50s/60s and there was a lot of this nonsense of putting shards of glass in concrete on the top of walls. One of my friends lost the use of a finger due to it by climbing over a wall, innocently just messing around as an 11 year old.

The glass severed the nerve supply to his finger and it couldn't be repaired.

jblack

nudger wrote: »

You mentioned that there may be a claim against the dog, would a "Beware Dog" sign get you out of that one.

Would a "Beware glass/glass can cut fingers" sign do the same.

Where do we stop, "beware alarm makes noise/PPE/ear muff must be worn while breaking in"

Back on topic, any criminal cases to show how Judges deal with these things.

Liability for dogs is strict, have a read of http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/96.html&query=dog&method=boolean

In terms of exclusion signs for personal injury they are probably useless, a warning sign on the other hand may make the activity of climbing volenti non fit injuria.

Given the position of children accorded with notions of reasonable foreseeable etc I would doubt that any such sign would afford much of a defence if it was a child, likewise a burglar in the dark.

The simplest way of putting it is, if you have something on your land (like a old well or razor wire) that is inherently dangerous and there is a reasonable foreseeability that someone, even a trespasser, could come into contact with it, and you fail to take appropriate measures to make them aware of the risk or take reasonable steps to prevent injury you may be liable.

Procrastastudy

jblack wrote: »

Liability for dogs is strict, have a read of http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/96.html&query=dog&method=boolean

In terms of exclusion signs for personal injury they are probably useless, a warning sign on the other hand may make the activity of climbing volenti non fit injuria.

Section 5(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 - The occupier cannot modify his duty (not to act with reckless disregard) to recreational users and trespassers. However Section 4(3) does give you some protection when its someone commiting an offence injured - such as a burglar.

IMO (for the little its worth) placing glass on a wall or some such action would be reckless disregard.

jblack wrote: »

Given the position of children accorded with notions of reasonable foreseeable etc I would doubt that any such sign would afford much of a defence if it was a child, likewise a burglar in the dark.

Healy and Quill have mentioned that a child injured would be dealt with in a similar way to McNamara v ESB - I personally don't understand how - but suffice it to say if a child gets hurt it's going to be expensive.

jblack wrote: »

The simplest way of putting it is, if you have something on your land (like a old well or razor wire) that is inherently dangerous and there is a reasonable foreseeability that someone, even a trespasser, could come into contact with it, and you fail to take appropriate measures to make them aware of the risk or take reasonable steps to prevent injury you may be liable.

nudger

jblack wrote: »

Liability for dogs is strict, have a read of http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/96.html&query=dog&method=boolean

In terms of exclusion signs for personal injury they are probably useless, a warning sign on the other hand may make the activity of climbing volenti non fit injuria.

Given the position of children accorded with notions of reasonable foreseeable etc I would doubt that any such sign would afford much of a defence if it was a child, likewise a burglar in the dark.

The simplest way of putting it is, if you have something on your land (like a old well or razor wire) that is inherently dangerous and there is a reasonable foreseeability that someone, even a trespasser, could come into contact with it, and you fail to take appropriate measures to make them aware of the risk or take reasonable steps to prevent injury you may be liable.

Thanks jblack but I don't agree, by law you have to put up a sign saying CCTV in operation if you want it to be used in court as evidence.
STOP at junctions for drivers etc.

The top of my garage is 10ft, there are no steps up to it, no signs saying "Children, free ice cream on top of garage"

Only a ne'er do well would be any where near it.

jblack

nudger wrote: »

Thanks jblack but I don't agree, by law you have to put up a sign saying CCTV in operation if you want it to be used in court as evidence.
STOP at junctions for drivers etc.

The top of my garage is 10ft, there are no steps up to it, no signs saying "Children, free ice cream on top of garage"

Only a ne'er do well would be any where near it.

I have no idea what the admissibility of CCTV has to do with this.

Children climb walls, so do trespassers - if you are reckless as to their safety, such as having glass shards on wall tops, you may be held liable.

There are numerous cases on liability of owners to trespassers, for some guidance have a look at the distinctions in case law made in the UK between the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 and the '84 Act.

Victor

nudger wrote: »

Only a ne'er do well would be any where near it.

Then use some obvious barbed wire, not some semi-concealed broken glass.

Finnbar01

Victor wrote: »

Then use some obvious barbed wire, not some semi-concealed broken glass.

What if the thief was 15 years of age and claiming that he was only trying to retrieve his football. Could he sue if he is injured by the barbed wire?

Milk & Honey

nudger wrote: »

Where do we stop, "beware alarm makes noise/PPE/ear muff must be worn while breaking in"

Back on topic, any criminal cases to show how Judges deal with these things.

We stop by you going to a solicitor and discussing your security arrangements. You clearly have no legal education or training and are likely to mis-construe
anything which might be said.

Victor

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if the thief was 15 years of age and claiming that he was only trying to retrieve his football. Could he sue if he is injured by the barbed wire?

Injury from barbed wire should be limited.

I think I had worked out by age 5 that it wasn't a good idea to climb barbed wire.

Finnbar01

Victor wrote: »

Injury from barbed wire should be limited.

I think I had worked out by age 5 that it wasn't a good idea to climb barbed wire.

I detect a hint of sarcasism in you response, nevertheless what if we're dealing with a dumb 15 yr old?

Procrastastudy

Its not clear whether the OLA would be interpreted subjectively - see Wier Rogers, however from what I've read of Healy and Quill - it looks like it would be with children.

That said 15 and barbed wire really is getting into the terriroty of pretty dumb.

Victor

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I detect a hint of sarcasism in you response, nevertheless what if we're dealing with a dumb 15 yr old?

Dumb means not able to speak (and corrupted into meaning stupid), not blind.

And if they are stupid enough to climb a ten foot wall (as stated) and impale themselves on barbed wire, then what are they doing out of the house unsupervised?

Finnbar01

Victor wrote: »

Dumb means not able to speak (and corrupted into meaning stupid), not blind.

And if they are stupid enough to climb a ten foot wall (as stated) and impale themselves on barbed wire, then what are they doing out of the house unsupervised?

15 year olds often get up to silly things at that age. Surely you can remember that yourself being 15 at one time.

The question still stands, if you don't know the answer, that's fine.

jblack

Finnbar01 wrote: »

15 year olds often get up to silly things at that age. Surely you can remember that yourself being 15 at one time.

The question still stands, if you don't know the answer, that's fine.

The question has been answered several times, even before it was asked.

If a child is injured as a result of barbed wire, then yes the occupier may be liable. Whether liability is imposed will depend on the facts of the case.