objecting to fence

whiteonblu

I am not asking for advice

Can someone object to a fence in a housing estate on the grounds they have an autistic child who might climb on it? Assume the fence does not require planning due to height. On what grounds would they object? I would think the child is their responsibility

Procrastastudy

Okay now I get it.

I don't know but if the child injures his or her self on your property you will likely fall foul of the Occupiers Liability Act.

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Okay now I get it.

I don't know but if the child injures his or her self on your property you will likely fall foul of the Occupiers Liability Act.

I received your unedited post in an email. What is that about? Making fun. You are a law student did you read the rules here

Farcear

A standard fence is unlikely to give rise to occupier's liability.

There is little, if anything, that can be done from a purely legal angle -- especially if the fence is on privately owned land.

Procrastastudy

Yes I was making fun and I'm well aware of the rules here!

Feel free to post what I wrote. Its in reference to Departed asking about the very same thing a few days ago.

The only reason I edited my post is because I thought it was your child and someone else's fence!

You probably also got my second edit where I deleted the post as I had it the wrong way round.

fasttalkerchat

Anyone can object. If its within the planning permission limits it won't be a problem.

Procrastastudy

Farcear wrote: »

A standard fence is unlikely to give rise to occupier's liability.

There is little, if anything, that can be done from a purely legal angle -- especially if the fence is on privately owned land.

I'm obliviously open to correction here but hasn't Binchy argued that McNamara would probably still apply in cases involving children? I've probably got it wrong but if a child is injured would the courts not be quite quick to impose liability - especially in a case where the party was on notice due to a complaint about the initial fence?

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Yes I was making fun and I'm well aware of the rules here!

where in the rules does it say you can make fun of a question

It is actually a hypothetical based on something i heard and not the same as Departed. My question is can someone who has an autistic child object on the basis the child may climb and fall. If that is so then she can object to a car parked on the road outside in case he walks into it

i think a lot of people think that because they have autistic child the rest of the world has to dance to their tune. Since it is within height that needs no pp i was wondering out of curiosity what basis she could object on

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm obliviously open to correction here but hasn't Binchy argued that McNamara would probably still apply in cases involving children? I've probably got it wrong but if a child is injured would the courts not be quite quick to impose liability - especially in a case where the party was on notice due to a complaint about the initial fence?

what is McNamara?

Procrastastudy

Where does it say I have to be 100% serious. I answered your question the post was relevant. There have been many people here that have leveled valid critism at me - I think you just need to get over fence yourself... see what I did there.

Procrastastudy

McNamara was the leading case on trespassing and injuries involving children until the Occupiers Liability Act came along. Some commentators think that it might still apply in cases involving minors but it's yet to be tested.

http://www.claruspress.ie/TORT1.pdf

Farcear

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm obliviously open to correction here but hasn't Binchy argued that McNamara would probably still apply in cases involving children? I've probably got it wrong but if a child is injured would the courts not be quite quick to impose liability - especially in a case where the party was on notice due to a complaint about the initial fence?

McNamara was very specific on its facts: uninsulated power cables, barbed wire, inapppropriate temporary fencing and a knowledge that children were playing in the electricity sub-station.

On the basis that this is an ordinary fence, I don't believe it's likely that a landlowner could be said to be acting with "reckless disregard".

whiteonblu

Farcear wrote: »

McNamara was very specific on its facts: uninsulated power cables, barbed wire, inapppropriate temporary fencing and a knowledge that children were playing in the electricity sub-station.

On the basis that this is an ordinary fence, I don't believe it's likely that a landlowner could be said to be acting with "reckless disregard".

Thanks for that comment. understand a little bit about occupiers liability but cannot see how one could argue they could object because they have an autistic child who might climb it and fall

Procrastastudy

I don't think anyone is saying they could object - just the ramifications after. There is also the slight possibility even in the face of no real legal theory your insurance may just settle.

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying they could object -

i didn't mean to suggest anyone here was saying that . i was just wondering aloud as to what basis it could be argued

Procrastastudy

I don't see how anyone could before its up. Land law is well known for being Byzantine in its complexity though.

Maybe just maybe nuisance... thats a long shot of silly proportions.

Farcear

You can seek Planning Injunctions quia timet.

Procrastastudy

Farcear wrote: »

You can seek Planning Injunctions quia timet.

But if it's too low to need planning?

Sorry OP if I'm hijacking I've found this quite interesting.

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Sorry OP if I'm hijacking I've found this quite interesting*.

Ok post away.All comments welcome so long as serious discussion

* Thought you found it funny

Procrastastudy

I find most things funny. Us fat people are a jolly bunch - well until the heart attacks get us...

Don't take my flippant attitude as not taking it seriously.

Anyway you've a bit of cheek :P I've seen your comments on the whiplash gynecologist thread!

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I find most things funny. Us fat people are a jolly bunch - well until the heart attacks get us...

Don't take my flippant attitude as not taking it seriously.

Anyway you've a bit of cheek :P I've seen your comments on the whiplash gynecologist thread!

i thought they were fair questions

Victor

Perhaps make sure the fence isn't readily climbable.