Liability - Children from next door climbing into garden

Bicycle

What is the liability issue if children fall climbing into your garden without having been invited into your garden?

We live at the bottom of a hill, the house back to back to us is much higher. There is a wall between the houses that is high on our side and low on the house backing onto us.

The children in the house backing on to us climb on to the wall and on a number of occasions we have asked them not to.

What happens if one of the kids falls into our garden? Are we liable or are the parents? (We don't get on with the parents, when we asked them on occasion to stop their kids peering into our garden and throwing their toys in they told us to do something about it - that their kids were kids and it basically wasn't their problem).

We are getting increasingly concerned about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any advice given.

TheChizler

I'd be very interested to hear this too. Ours is the exact situation with differing levels except we're backing on to a pub beer garden, do different children every time with parents busy elsewhere.

CDB1985

You could be liable, even though you are not giving them permission you are aware that they are down there on the wall and that it is dangerous.

Reckless disregard under the occupiers liability act. 1995.

2) In determining whether or not an occupier has so acted with reckless disregard, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including—

(a) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger existed on the premises;

(b) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person and, in the case of damage, property of the person, was or was likely to be on the premises;

(c) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person or property of the person was in, or was likely to be in, the vicinity of the place where the danger existed;

(d) whether the danger was one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier might reasonably be expected to provide protection for the person and property of the person;

(e) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or of protecting the person and property of the person from the danger, taking into account the difficulty, expense or impracticability, having regard to the character of the premises and the degree of the danger, of so doing;

(f) the character of the premises including, in relation to premises of such a character as to be likely to be used for recreational activity, the desirability of maintaining the tradition of open access to premises of such a character for such an activity;

(g) the conduct of the person, and the care which he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety, while on the premises, having regard to the extent of his or her knowledge thereof;

(h) the nature of any warning given by the occupier or another person of the danger; and

(i) whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's activities.

Bicycle

CDB - thank you. Unfortunately I don't have the sort of brain that understands legalese very well.

Could you please inform me if the following is a correct interpretation of what you have posted:

1. I could be liable for the safety of the children, depending on circumstances.
2. In order to attenuate this liability, I would be well served by sending a letter to the occupants (they are renting) stating that there is a danger caused by the height level of the wall and that there is a paved patio beneath (the father of the children is already aware because I have caught him looking in over the wall and into our living room!!)
3. I should make an attempt to block off this access to my house, provided that the expense is proportionate to the nature of the situation (funds are low at the moment and I'm trying to avoid any unnecessary expenditure).

4. Because the house is rented, should I also communicate this to the owner of the house? (it is PRTB registered and I have her current address)

Many thanks again.

MagicSean

Plant a thick hedge under the wall.

CDB1985

Obviously what I am saying is only a guide and you would have to look into it further.

Under the act danger means a danger due to the state of the premises.

Is a wall a danger? You probably wouldn't consider that it would be a danger in usual circumstances. The only thing that may convert it into a danger is the fact that you are aware that the children are climbing on it.

I wouldn't think that you would not need go to extremes in terms of action you would have to take. Also I don't know what the parents of the children are like or how they would react if you said that you were concerned that their children were climbing on the wall.

Also, reckless disregard takes into account:

(i) whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's activities.

The parents are obviously in the house on the other side of the wall..can they see what is going on?

Procrastastudy

Bicycle wrote: »

CDB - thank you. Unfortunately I don't have the sort of brain that understands legalese very well.

Could you please inform me if the following is a correct interpretation of what you have posted:

1. I could be liable for the safety of the children, depending on circumstances.
2. In order to attenuate this liability, I would be well served by sending a letter to the occupants (they are renting) stating that there is a danger caused by the height level of the wall and that there is a paved patio beneath (the father of the children is already aware because I have caught him looking in over the wall and into our living room!!)
3. I should make an attempt to block off this access to my house, provided that the expense is proportionate to the nature of the situation (funds are low at the moment and I'm trying to avoid any unnecessary expenditure).

4. Because the house is rented, should I also communicate this to the owner of the house? (it is PRTB registered and I have her current address)

Many thanks again.

Reckless disregard would mean you'd have to have something pretty dangerous - bordering on deliberate. The problem is it's kids and although it's not codified in the act there is a possibility that the bar to liability would be set lower in the case of children. I can only speak from the position of studying this so take it at that value. You can google "How reckless may an occupier be" buy Binchy and have a read of Healy's tort book for anyone who is interested.

I can't give legal advice I am far from qualified to do so. If it where me though I would do the following:

(i) Check I was well insured against legal action most household policies have an option of some sort.
(ii) Write to the Parents stating that if this continues you will take the matter to the Landlord
(iii) Write to the Landlord stating that you will take this to the PRTB if you don't get any joy with the parents.

Other than that it may be a bit OTT but perhaps a call to social services that you are concerned for their safety if this is a really high wall and all the parents say is Kids will be kids.

Bicycle

Thanks CDB and Procrastastudy - I appreciate that neither of you can give full legal advice here and I appreciate the help you have given me.

The wall is about 5.5 feet high on my side and about 3.5 feet high on their side. I have previously asked the parents to keep the children away from the wall. We are in a position where they are antagonising my dogs and throwing toys into the garden. I have asked the children to stay away from the wall because of the potential danger from the dogs in addition to the issue of falling over.

The parents are very much aware of the situation. The elder child climbs into my next door neighbour's garden and will often stand against the party wall between myself and my neighbour staring at us using our garden.

The house has public liability insurance and I paid extra for legal fees. I may check with my insurance broker to see what the situation is in regard to the liability situation.

The next step after that would be a nicely worded and non-confrontational letter to the parents copied to the home owner expressing my concern about the children and the wall.

I really don't want to exacerbate the situation between ourselves and the parents because we may well be sharing that wall with them for a while.

Long term, obviously, the plan will be to put up a fence. And hopefully once my financial situation is a little less precarious this will be done.

Thank you both again, I appreciate your time.

Procrastastudy

Bicycle wrote: »

Thanks CDB and Procrastastudy - I appreciate that neither of you can give full legal advice here and I appreciate the help you have given me.

The wall is about 5.5 feet high on my side and about 3.5 feet high on their side. I have previously asked the parents to keep the children away from the wall. We are in a position where they are antagonising my dogs and throwing toys into the garden. I have asked the children to stay away from the wall because of the potential danger from the dogs in addition to the issue of falling over.

I realise you mention a potential danger and I get what you mean but if the Dog bites the child that is a completely different story with regard to liability under a different heading entirely to Occupier's. If you have mentioned to the neighbours that the dog could potentially be an issue you are exposing yourself. Be very careful about the dogs and what you say.

MariMel

When reading this something popped up in my mind....
So I was wondering, if a child throws its toy into your garden, are you obliged to return them?
As in, if the situation mentioned in this thread...if the children are antagonising the dog by throwing toys at it, could you keep these toys?
There are only so many toys that could be thrown before the parents would be looking for them back.
toys back in return for kids not throwing them in future?

Procrastastudy

MariMel wrote: »

When reading this something popped up in my mind....
So I was wondering, if a child throws its toy into your garden, are you obliged to return them?
As in, if the situation mentioned in this thread...if the children are antagonising the dog by throwing toys at it, could you keep these toys?
There are only so many toys that could be thrown before the parents would be looking for them back.
toys back in return for kids not throwing them in future?

Well this isn't even something I've read up on just something I was told. If you leave them where they are and don't interfere with them then you're grand. If you move them then there may be issues.

MariMel

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Well this isn't even something I've read up on just something I was told. If you leave them where they are and don't interfere with them then you're grand. If you move them then there may be issues.

so leave them and just let the dog whatever it wants to them once you yourself dont touch them?
I dont think the kids would be too long about stopping if the dog chewed a few of them.

Procrastastudy

MariMel wrote: »

so leave them and just let the dog whatever it wants to them once you yourself dont touch them?
I dont think the kids would be too long about stopping if the dog chewed a few of them.

Well you'd probably have to stop the dog chewing them as well. But tbh this thread started to get dodgy on it's legal footing as soon as I made my first post.

SweetCaliber

Hey OP,

Best thing to do is put up a fence which covers the top of the wall, this will stop them from peeping in, from throwing toys in and will also stop them from falling in.

Wils110

Your argument could easily be your kid shouldn't be climbing the walls he fell its what kids do........when your standing on something 4 to 10 inches wide it's the kids balance that decides where he lands no one can control that it's your neighbours negleance if your unsure send a letter and politely ask for a reply

slarkin123

MariMel wrote: »

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Well this isn't even something I've read up on just something I was told. If you leave them where they are and don't interfere with them then you're grand. If you move them then there may be issues.

so leave them and just let the dog whatever it wants to them once you yourself dont touch them?
I dont think the kids would be too long about stopping if the dog chewed a few of them.

That's exactly what i did. For a days my neighbours kids were throwing toys over the wall and id be the fool and give them back. I had warned them not to he doing it. Eventually i gave up giving them back and everything that was thrown over was demolished very quickly by 2 pups . The kids soon learnt to stop cause they were getting nothing back.

OP What have the parents said when you approached them? If someone knocked on my door and told me my kids were doing the same, they wouldn't see the light day for a while. Is there a local community garda you can approach if you're getting no luck with the parents

Bicycle

Thanks everyone.

The father of the children has told me that the children looking over my wall is MY problem not his. He has further complained about my dogs making noise. Now the interesting thing is that (a) my dogs only make noise when his kids are out because they lean over the wall and antagonise the dogs - calling the dogs by their names and trying to throw things at them and (b) said neighbour's dog is allowed out at 7am every morning to howl until 8am.

I've already told the children at the back that if anything comes into my garden (last Friday one of them was hanging a stuffed penguin down over my wall within inches of the dogs) then I won't give it back and the dogs are likely to eat the toys.

Another day, I found them trying to put their own dog into our garden. Our dogs are pretty protective of their space and I was appalled at the concept.

Another day the kids were throwing bones belonging to their dog into our back garden - they got a lecture on cross-contamination which probably went over their heads but which made me feel better :rolleyes:

My gang are teens and can't stand the kids at the back. They have all said that if they did what the other kids are doing, I would have them hauled in and as Slarkin has said, they wouldn't see the light of day for a while.

The positive is that in the current weather conditions the kids aren't going to be out and with winter they will be out less and less. And hopefully by the time it comes to next summer I will have a fence up.

I don't want to get the community garda involved as I feel it might escalate the situation and I've been told unofficially that the father has links with people I mightn't want to be linked with

Thanks again everyone.

valleyoftheunos

OP

The law has been well set out above, are you showing reckless disregard for the wellbeing of the children through the state of your premises? if not you won't be liable for any accidental injuries cause by them falling into your garden.

This is by no means legal advice but if I were you I would;

1) Write a short and clear letter to your neighbour requesting that they prevent their children from climbing on the wall as there is a greater drop on your side. Keep a copy of this letter for yourself.

By doing this you have made the children's parents aware of the danger which would be a reasonable step for you to take to prevent injury to the children. You are not required to remove all potential causes of injury on your property, only to take reasonable steps to prevent an injury.

EDIT: Actually as the children are technically trespassers you don't even need to take reasonable steps to prevent an injury. still though, best to do it anyway.

2) look into erecting a fence which will discourage the children from climbing on the wall and make the wall safer. Be careful with this, it could be possible that a fence could infact make climbing on the wall more dangerous.

Don't make mention of the landlord or the PTRB, its not an issue for them and certainly do not contact Social Services, there is no suggestion of the endangerment of the children, nor are they "at risk".

the issue of whether your dogs could cause liability has been the subject of various threads here, i suggest you look them up.

the_syco

Are your dogs big or small? If big, they should have no problems with bones, but if your dogs are small, they may not be able to process the small bones.

As for the toys litter that they throw into your garden; bin it.

Bannasidhe

OP

I have a similar problem and it's been going on for 5 years. I share an L shaped wall with next door neighbour - he fenced the long part of the 'L' (where the wall is 6') but left the leg unfenced, then built a large shed with patio bit and high deck behind the unfenced bit as a play house for his kids. Essentially this means during the 5 days it's not raining in Summer I have zero privacy in my garden as his kids just stare in at us. We have also caught them teasing my dogs and climbing in to retrieve their toys (I stopped throwing them back last year after my 2 year old grandson was brained by a soccer ball :mad:).
My solution was to build a play 'castle' for the grandkids out of various bits of wood I had lying around against the leg of the 'L'. This allowed me to raise the height of the wall/partition level with his fencing, block off any access/sightline his kids have to my garden and as I have a clear plastic roof on the castle they cannot use that to climb in.

I would say your best option is to fence it. If your neighbour is anything like mine all you are likely to get is abuse when you ask that he ensure his kids respect your privacy and property.

winsumlusum

EDIT: Actually as the children are technically trespassers you don't even need to take reasonable steps to prevent an injury.

That is incorrect and a very dangerous attitude

valleyoftheunos

winsumlusum wrote: »

That is incorrect and a very dangerous attitude

maybe next time you would like to quote the rest of the sentence where I say it would still be best to do so!

Also my comment is in relation to the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, as the children are technically trespassers the standard of care is one of not showing reckless disregard for their safety rather than having to avoid all possible injuries or take reasonable steps to avoid injury. Although as mentioned by another poster above the standard might be different where children are involved.

My point related to a legal technicality, its not my attitude to things and I'd thank you not to misquote me or others in the future.

winsumlusum

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

maybe next time you would like to quote the rest of the sentence where I say it would still be best to do so!

Also my comment is in relation to the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, as the children are technically trespassers the standard of care is one of not showing reckless disregard for their safety rather than having to avoid all possible injuries or take reasonable steps to avoid injury. Although as mentioned by another poster above the standard might be different where children are involved.

My point related to a legal technicality, its not my attitude to things and I'd thank you not to misquote me or others in the future.

i

I didn't misquote you what you said was incorrect . you said

: Actually as the children are technically trespassers you don't even need to take reasonable steps to prevent an injury

that part is incorrect even if you add its best to do so does not change it so it is not a misquote.You have to take reasonable care where children are involved and forsee any accidents.Try not having a different standard for children and see what happens.

I'd thank you not to misquote me or others in the future

I did not misquote you. who are the others. All members here or all who post on the net Why do you speak for all of them?

vicwatson

Surely a trespasser would have to prove that an owner was negligent in some way, it seems that the OP isn't being negligent?

Procrastastudy

vicwatson wrote: »

Surely a trespasser would have to prove that an owner was negligent in some way, it seems that the OP isn't being negligent?

Under the Occupiers Liability Act is goes further than that - it's a reckless disregard. However when it comes to children or liability for animals it's a different story.

Victor

Render the wall unclimbable.

Pkiernan

Paint a 6" strip of anti vandal grease paint on the inside vertical surface of your wall. Don't get any on the top of the wall.

When the little **** put their hands over, they cover their clothes in grease.



Or plant a load of stinging nettles back in from the wall. They are really useful for attracting butterflies to your garden by the way.

ResearchWill

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

maybe next time you would like to quote the rest of the sentence where I say it would still be best to do so!

Also my comment is in relation to the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, as the children are technically trespassers the standard of care is one of not showing reckless disregard for their safety rather than having to avoid all possible injuries or take reasonable steps to avoid injury. Although as mentioned by another poster above the standard might be different where children are involved.

My point related to a legal technicality, its not my attitude to things and I'd thank you not to misquote me or others in the future.

While you are correct in your statement in relation to the 1995 Act and more importantly "reckless disregard" it is important to look further in the section



(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5 .

(2) In determining whether or not an occupier has so acted with reckless disregard, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including—

(a) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger existed on the premises;

(b) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person and, in the case of damage, property of the person, was or was likely to be on the premises;

(c) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person or property of the person was in, or was likely to be in, the vicinity of the place where the danger existed;

(d) whether the danger was one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier might reasonably be expected to provide protection for the person and property of the person;

(e) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or of protecting the person and property of the person from the danger, taking into account the difficulty, expense or impracticability, having regard to the character of the premises and the degree of the danger, of so doing;

(f) the character of the premises including, in relation to premises of such a character as to be likely to be used for recreational activity, the desirability of maintaining the tradition of open access to premises of such a character for such an activity;

(g) the conduct of the person, and the care which he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety, while on the premises, having regard to the extent of his or her knowledge thereof;

(h) the nature of any warning given by the occupier or another person of the danger; and

(i) whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's activities.


I think at least (a) (b) (c) and (d) fit perfectly this case the OP is aware of a danger, wall 3.5 feet on one side 6.5 feet on his side. He is aware that that sort of drop is a danger, he is aware that the children have a habit of being on the wall, he is aware that they throw things at his dogs(a possible further danger). Finally is he expected to provide protection, well I assume a fence on top of the wall would more than likely sort the problem, if same is impossible through planning or cost, covered by (e) then he may have a defence, but courts are more likely to be sympathic to small injured child. (f) to (I) give further defences, which I admit could come into play in this case.

While reckless disregard sounds ok, as subsection 2 sets out its still an onerous standard.

A good case on this point is Crowley v AIB 1987 1IR 282, the fact that OP has made attempts to stop the children may mean he can distinguish Crowley, and raise 2 (h).

valleyoftheunos

ResearchWill wrote: »

While you are correct in your statement in relation to the 1995 Act and more importantly "reckless disregard" it is important to look further in the section



(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5 .

(2) In determining whether or not an occupier has so acted with reckless disregard, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including—

(a) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger existed on the premises;

(b) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person and, in the case of damage, property of the person, was or was likely to be on the premises;

(c) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person or property of the person was in, or was likely to be in, the vicinity of the place where the danger existed;

(d) whether the danger was one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier might reasonably be expected to provide protection for the person and property of the person;

(e) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or of protecting the person and property of the person from the danger, taking into account the difficulty, expense or impracticability, having regard to the character of the premises and the degree of the danger, of so doing;

(f) the character of the premises including, in relation to premises of such a character as to be likely to be used for recreational activity, the desirability of maintaining the tradition of open access to premises of such a character for such an activity;

(g) the conduct of the person, and the care which he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety, while on the premises, having regard to the extent of his or her knowledge thereof;

(h) the nature of any warning given by the occupier or another person of the danger; and

(i) whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's activities.


I think at least (a) (b) (c) and (d) fit perfectly this case the OP is aware of a danger, wall 3.5 feet on one side 6.5 feet on his side. He is aware that that sort of drop is a danger, he is aware that the children have a habit of being on the wall, he is aware that they throw things at his dogs(a possible further danger). Finally is he expected to provide protection, well I assume a fence on top of the wall would more than likely sort the problem, if same is impossible through planning or cost, covered by (e) then he may have a defence, but courts are more likely to be sympathic to small injured child. (f) to (I) give further defences, which I admit could come into play in this case.

While reckless disregard sounds ok, as subsection 2 sets out its still an onerous standard.

A good case on this point is Crowley v AIB 1987 1IR 282, the fact that OP has made attempts to stop the children may mean he can distinguish Crowley, and raise 2 (h).

In fairness you're dead right about a, b, c, and d above. however I doubt failure to erect a fence on the top of the wall would amount to reckless disregard when the OP has sought to address the issue through their parents. I feel there is a good possibility that would distinguish Crowley.

I wonder would it be possible to pursue that notion further and counter sue the parents in Negligence for their failure to prevent the injury?

winsumlusum

ResearchWill wrote: »

While you are correct in your statement in relation to the 1995 Act and more importantly "reckless disregard" it is important to look further in the section



(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5 .

(2) In determining whether or not an occupier has so acted with reckless disregard, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including—

(a) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger existed on the premises;

(b) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person and, in the case of damage, property of the person, was or was likely to be on the premises;

(c) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the person or property of the person was in, or was likely to be in, the vicinity of the place where the danger existed;

(d) whether the danger was one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier might reasonably be expected to provide protection for the person and property of the person;

(e) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or of protecting the person and property of the person from the danger, taking into account the difficulty, expense or impracticability, having regard to the character of the premises and the degree of the danger, of so doing;

(f) the character of the premises including, in relation to premises of such a character as to be likely to be used for recreational activity, the desirability of maintaining the tradition of open access to premises of such a character for such an activity;

(g) the conduct of the person, and the care which he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety, while on the premises, having regard to the extent of his or her knowledge thereof;

(h) the nature of any warning given by the occupier or another person of the danger; and

(i) whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's activities.


I think at least (a) (b) (c) and (d) fit perfectly this case the OP is aware of a danger, wall 3.5 feet on one side 6.5 feet on his side. He is aware that that sort of drop is a danger, he is aware that the children have a habit of being on the wall, he is aware that they throw things at his dogs(a possible further danger). Finally is he expected to provide protection, well I assume a fence on top of the wall would more than likely sort the problem, if same is impossible through planning or cost, covered by (e) then he may have a defence, but courts are more likely to be sympathic to small injured child. (f) to (I) give further defences, which I admit could come into play in this case.

While reckless disregard sounds ok, as subsection 2 sets out its still an onerous standard.

A good case on this point is Crowley v AIB 1987 1IR 282, the fact that OP has made attempts to stop the children may mean he can distinguish Crowley, and raise 2 (h).

Not being smart but would he be liable if they climbed the fence on top of the wall and fell? Should he have foreseen that?

ResearchWill

winsumlusum wrote: »

Not being smart but would he be liable if they climbed the fence on top of the wall and fell? Should he have foreseen that?

Your not being smart at all, but I would assume if he was building a fence to sole the problem it would be built so as not to allow a child to climb the fence. That may not be possible and if after getting advice the OP is told a fence could in fact make the problem worse then he should not do it. The issues is first is there a danger, 2 are you aware of the danger (or should you be aware) 3 can you fix the danger.

ResearchWill

winsumlusum wrote: »

Not being smart but would he be liable if they climbed the fence on top of the wall and fell? Should he have foreseen that?

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

In fairness you're dead right about a, b, c, and d above. however I doubt failure to erect a fence on the top of the wall would amount to reckless disregard when the OP has sought to address the issue through their parents. I feel there is a good possibility that would distinguish Crowley.

I wonder would it be possible to pursue that notion further and counter sue the parents in Negligence for their failure to prevent the injury?

Again you could be correct, but to be honest I would not like to be the OP defending the case if anything happened. The OP should make sure he is insured, he should get good legal advice and advice from engineer, as well as doing his best (as he has done) to inform adult parents of children, pref in writing and pref through solicitor.

mikemac1

How about that anti climbing grease on the wall

It's not slippery, you aren't going to cause the children to fall through devious means

But it will destroy clothes and their parents should be put an end to it then

valleyoftheunos

ResearchWill wrote: »

Your not being smart at all, but I would assume if he was building a fence to sole the problem it would be built so as not to allow a child to climb the fence. That may not be possible and if after getting advice the OP is told a fence could in fact make the problem worse then he should not do it. The issues is first is there a danger, 2 are you aware of the danger (or should you be aware) 3 can you fix the danger.

In fairness even with children in mind the required standard isn't that all possible accidents or injury is prevented, only that reasonable steps are taken as per the class of entrant. SF trusts v Wotsit makes that clear.

ResearchWill

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

In fairness even with children in mind the required standard isn't that all possible accidents or injury is prevented, only that reasonable steps are taken as per the class of entrant. SF trusts v Wotsit makes that clear.

I think that is exactly what I said. The Weir Rodgers v S.F. Trusts Ltd. [2005] 1 IR 47, is a good case but not really on point, in that all people walking along a coast above sea level must reasonable be aware that there are cliffs.

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

As I have said the OP is aware of at least two dangers, he is aware of people who may expose themselves to the danger. The only remaing issue is can he reasonably remedy the danger. He may not have to do anything but I for one would rather do all in my power to make sure a child is not injured than fight a HC PI case as defendant.

Bicycle

Thanks everyone for your guidance (I'm a she btw!! )

Since I last posted, we've had an issue with one of the children from "over the wall" trying to get into our back garden when my son and his friend were playing. It was apparent that she wanted to join in - but had her feet on the wall.

My elder daughter - an individual that you don't cross, makes the territorial terrier seem like a marshmallow!! - saw this and went out and remonstrated with her.

At the moment I'm in the fortunate/unfortunate position of not working and therefore can monitor the situation. However a fence will have to go up. And I need to make sure that they cannot climb up on this fence. While I have legal protection included in my home insurance and have public liability insurance as well (the standard public liability insurance that goes with home insurance) its not something I would like to contest. To be frank, I'd prefer if the children just buzzed off and left us in peace.

The legal precedents raised by some of the posters (I can understand some but not most of the legalese) suggests that this is a potential minefield for not just me but many other home owners.

slimjimmc

Bicycle wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your guidance (I'm a she btw!! )

Since I last posted, we've had an issue with one of the children from "over the wall" trying to get into our back garden when my son and his friend were playing. It was apparent that she wanted to join in - but had her feet on the wall.

My elder daughter - an individual that you don't cross, makes the territorial terrier seem like a marshmallow!! - saw this and went out and remonstrated with her.

At the moment I'm in the fortunate/unfortunate position of not working and therefore can monitor the situation. However a fence will have to go up. And I need to make sure that they cannot climb up on this fence. While I have legal protection included in my home insurance and have public liability insurance as well (the standard public liability insurance that goes with home insurance) its not something I would like to contest. To be frank, I'd prefer if the children just buzzed off and left us in peace.

The legal precedents raised by some of the posters (I can understand some but not most of the legalese) suggests that this is a potential minefield for not just me but many other home owners.

You need planning permission to build a wall or wooden fence higher than 2 (6.5 feet) metres at the rear of a house. I doubt you'll be allowed to exceed 2m high from your garden.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/planning_perm_altering_a_house.html

Bicycle

slimjimmc wrote: »

You need planning permission to build a wall or wooden fence higher than 2 (6.5 feet) metres at the rear of a house. I doubt you'll be allowed to exceed 2m high from your garden.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/planning_perm_altering_a_house.html

On which side of the wall? If the wall is only 3 feet on their side and it is 4.5 feet on my side, can I put up a fence in the middle of the wall raising it to 2 m on their side?

This situation is getting quite complex.... What if I was to put up chicken wire or build a fence/protective barrier with rolls of synthetic grass?

valleyoftheunos

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think that is exactly what I said. The Weir Rodgers v S.F. Trusts Ltd. [2005] 1 IR 47, is a good case but not really on point, in that all people walking along a coast above sea level must reasonable be aware that there are cliffs.

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

As I have said the OP is aware of at least two dangers, he is aware of people who may expose themselves to the danger. The only remaing issue is can he reasonably remedy the danger. He may not have to do anything but I for one would rather do all in my power to make sure a child is not injured than fight a HC PI case as defendant.

I think we are in agreement alright but I'd say SF Trusts is definitely on point as the ratio directly (IIRC) refers to the required standard of care.

I realise that we are dealing with children here and it might be argued that the standard could be different (although there is no decided case on that) but it is clear that they are aware of the height difference on the OP's side and thus could be reasonably held to appreciate the danger.

slimjimmc

Bicycle wrote: »

On which side of the wall? If the wall is only 3 feet on their side and it is 4.5 feet on my side, can I put up a fence in the middle of the wall raising it to 2 m on their side?

This situation is getting quite complex.... What if I was to put up chicken wire or build a fence/protective barrier with rolls of synthetic grass?

I really doubt it, I'd say it's based on whatever side gives the highest measurement and that would make the wall 8ft on your side.
You need to talk to your Local Authority planning office to be sure.

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I think we are in agreement alright but I'd say SF Trusts is definitely on point as the ratio directly (IIRC) refers to the required standard of care.

I realise that we are dealing with children here and it might be argued that the standard could be different (although there is no decided case on that) but it is clear that they are aware of the height difference on the OP's side and thus could be reasonably held to appreciate the danger.

No one actually knows but both Binchy and Healy cast doubt over wether Wier Rogers would apply to children. Its fiuther put forward by Healy that McNamara would still apply.